Succession Law – Faridkot Royal Family Property Dispute – Appellants and respondents contested the succession to the estate of Raja Harinder Singh – Main issues included the applicability of the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, the Rule of Primogeniture, and the validity of the Third Will dated June 01, 1982 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling that the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act was not a valid enactment for succession purposes and that the Rule of Primogeniture was not applicable – The properties were to be succeeded according to personal law of succession – Third Will declared invalid [Paras 1-28].

Primogeniture – Not Applicable – The Court held that the Rule of Primogeniture did not apply to the properties of Raja Harinder Singh after the integration of Faridkot State into the Indian Union – Succession was to be governed by personal law rather than by primogeniture [Paras 20-21].

Validity of Will – The Court found the Third Will dated June 01, 1982, executed by Raja Harinder Singh to be a fabricated document, shrouded with suspicious circumstances, and therefore invalid – Succession to the properties left by the Ruler was to be governed by intestate succession [Paras 14, 19].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Properties to be succeeded as per personal law – Maharwal Khewaji Trust to manage properties until further orders from the executing court [Paras 28].

Motor Accident – Serious Injuries – Compensation Enhancement – Appellant sustained severe injuries resulting in 68% permanent disability (assessed by High Court as 100%) – Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering – High Court enhanced compensation for future economic loss, considering claimant's income at Rs. 3,000/- per month – Supreme Court found Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering insufficient, awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- – Future economic loss recalculated considering claimant's income as Mason at Rs. 5,000/- per month with a multiplier of 15 – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,42,800/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till satisfaction [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced – Respondent Insurance Company directed to pay the enhanced compensation within eight weeks [Para 5].

Insolvency Law – CIRP Against Corporate Guarantor – Liability of Guarantor – CIRP can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without first proceeding against the principal borrower – Liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower – Supreme Court held that the guarantor metamorphoses into a debtor or corporate debtor if the principal borrower defaults in payment – Judgment in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India and Another (2021) 8 SCC 481 affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Corporate Guarantor – Definition and Scope – Court interpreted the definitions under Section 3(7), 3(8), and 5(5A) of the IBC to include corporate persons offering guarantees for loans taken by non-corporate borrowers – Legislative intent does not exclude such guarantors from CIRP provisions [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 17-18].

Municipal Law – Possession and Permanent Injunction – Town Planning Scheme – Land reserved for public park under the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme vested in the Municipal Committee – Plaintiff sought permanent injunction alleging possession – Courts held possession of land was already taken over by Municipality and developed as a public park – Supreme Court held plaintiff not entitled to permanent injunction – Scheme not challenged by plaintiff and deemed lapse not sought – Appeals allowed, permanent injunction set aside [Paras 1-11].

Contempt Proceedings – Status Quo Order – Context and Violation – Order of status quo regarding possession interpreted in context – Municipality’s development of land as a public park after possession does not violate status quo order – Contempt proceedings closed [Para 10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment in Regular Second Appeal No. 115/1994 quashed – Trial Court's decree of permanent injunction set aside – First Appellate Court's judgment restored – Original suit dismissed – Contempt proceedings disposed of [Para 11].

Civil Procedure – Mesne Profits – Lease Determination – Appellant liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate the landlord could have let out the premises post-lease expiry – Under Section 2(12) CPC, the tenant's liability for damages is based on the rate at which the landlord could have rented out the premises upon tenant's vacating – Court must determine whether the tenant could lawfully sublet the premises to derive higher profit – Supreme Court held that tenant at sufferance cannot transfer interest after lease expiry [Paras 1-5].

Transfer of Property – Tenant at Sufferance – Lease Expiry – Once the lease ends, the tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance and loses right or interest in the property – Even though under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act a tenant might transfer interest during the lease, post-expiry they cannot lawfully sublet or transfer the premises [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's modification of the Single Judge's decree affirmed – Appellant liable for mesne profits as determined – Directions issued for calculating and paying the damages accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Insolvency Law – Priority of Tax Claims – The State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act – Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides for a first charge on the property of the dealer for tax dues – Supreme Court held that Section 48 is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 of the IBC – Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the IBC includes debts owed to a secured creditor, which includes the State under the GVAT Act – Resolution Plan must address statutory demands payable to the State – Adjudicating Authority must reject plans that ignore such statutory dues [Paras 1-59].

Secured Creditor – Definition and Application – Section 3(30) of the IBC defines a secured creditor to include a creditor with a security interest created by operation of law – The definition does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority – Supreme Court affirmed that the State under the GVAT Act qualifies as a secured creditor [Paras 27-30].

Resolution Plan – Statutory Compliance – A Resolution Plan must conform to the requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC, including addressing statutory dues – Adjudicating Authority must ensure compliance before approval – NCLAT erred in holding that Section 53 of the IBC overrides Section 48 of the GVAT Act [Paras 41-55].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Resolution Plan approved by the CoC set aside – Resolution Professional to consider a fresh Resolution Plan addressing statutory dues – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Appeal – Appellant can challenge an ex parte decree on the grounds that the trial court's decision to proceed ex parte was unjustified – If the appellant did not file an application under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC, they can still argue on the basis of the trial court's records that the suit summons was not served or that proceeding ex parte was incorrect – Under Section 105 of CPC, errors affecting the decision of the case can be set forth as grounds of objection in the appeal [Paras 1-8].

Service of Summons – Legality and Verification – Trial court's failure to verify the address before proceeding ex parte – Summons returned unserved with remarks "Intimation Delivered" – Court must ensure proper service as per Rule 17 of Order V of CPC – Without such verification, proceeding ex parte was unwarranted [Paras 9-10].

Remand of Suit – Given that a multi-storeyed building was constructed on the suit property and premises occupied by different persons, the suit requires reconsideration – Suit remanded to the trial court with conditions [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment dated 22nd March 2016 and City Civil Court's decree dated 19th September 2015 set aside – Original Suit No. 6610 of 2014 restored for fresh adjudication – Costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on the appellant as a condition precedent for the suit remand – Appellant to file written statement within one month from 26th September 2022 – Trial court to prioritize disposal of the suit [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – High Court discharged respondents accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Supreme Court found High Court erred in applying legal principles, particularly in the burden of proof and scope of inquiry at the stage of framing charges – Held, burden to satisfactorily account for disproportionate assets lies on the accused once prosecution establishes prima facie case – Discharge orders set aside [Paras 1-16, 18-31, 32-33].

Burden of Proof – Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Accused required to account for assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily explain once prosecution shows prima facie disproportion – High Court incorrectly demanded prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt at charge framing stage – Emphasis on preponderance of probabilities for the accused's explanation [Paras 34-41, 43-46].

Income Tax Returns – Evidentiary Value – Income tax returns not conclusive proof of lawful income – High Court erred in considering income tax returns as exculpatory without trial – Court emphasized need for evaluating all evidence, including IT returns, during trial – High Court's reliance on IT returns at discharge stage inappropriate [Para 46].

Scope of Inquiry at Charge Framing Stage – Inquiry at charge framing stage limited to prima facie case assessment – Detailed examination of defense evidence not warranted – High Court's detailed consideration of accused's defense evidence at this stage was incorrect – Supreme Court reiterated limited scope for charge framing [Paras 22-24, 50-51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders discharging the respondents set aside – Matter remanded for trial – Emphasized proper application of legal standards at charge framing stage and correct burden of proof under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Tender Disqualification – Grounds and Validity – Appellant disqualified from tender participation by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority based on termination of a Concession Agreement by the Visakhapatnam Port Authority – High Court upheld disqualification – Appellant contended termination was retaliatory and pending arbitration – Supreme Court disposed of appeals with a broad consensus – Termination not to disqualify appellant from future tenders – Procedural fairness in disqualification processes emphasized [Paras 1-8].

Arbitration and Contractual Disputes – Pending Proceedings – Termination of Concession Agreement under arbitration – Supreme Court noted pending arbitral proceedings and agreed termination should not affect tender eligibility until resolved – Highlighted need for independent resolution of disputes without affecting unrelated tender qualifications [Paras 4-7].

Withdrawal of Writ Petition – Liberty to Challenge – Appellant withdrew writ petition challenging RFQ clause with liberty to refile – Court noted withdrawal does not influence future legal challenges – Emphasized importance of preserving legal rights to contest potentially unfair contractual terms [Paras 4.2, 9].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2022 disposed of – Writ Petition No. 569 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge validity of Clause 2.2.8 of RFQ documents in the High Court – Termination of Concession Agreement by Visakhapatnam Port Authority not to disqualify appellant from participating in future tenders by public authorities.