Civil Procedure – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Court held that the provisions under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 do not bar the civil court from entertaining a suit seeking declaration of an existing right to use a drain. The High Court erred in invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds of jurisdiction [Paras 1-19].

Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act – Sections 246, 247, 248 – Rights over Drains – The Act empowers the Commissioner to compel the owner of a drain to permit use by others but does not provide an express or implied bar on the civil court from entertaining suits relating to the declaration of existing rights over drains [Paras 12-16].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 9 of CPC – Bar of jurisdiction under GMC Act – The Court reiterated that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except where expressly or impliedly barred. The provisions in GMC Act regarding drains do not constitute such a bar [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The order of the High Court rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored for consideration on merits. The appellant’s right to seek declaratory relief for the use of a drain is within the jurisdiction of the civil court [Paras 20-22].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Resolution Plan Approval – Jurisdiction of Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities – Court held that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as long as the resolution plan meets the requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC – Emphasized that the authorities have no equity-based jurisdiction to alter business decisions made by the CoC [Paras 1-44].

Resolution Plan – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Court reiterated that the commercial decisions of the CoC, made by the requisite majority, are not justiciable and cannot be questioned by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority – The role of these authorities is limited to ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements of the IBC [Paras 22-31].

Fair and Equitable Treatment – Operational and Financial Creditors – Discussed the distinction between operational and financial creditors – Highlighted that equitable treatment under the IBC pertains to creditors within the same class and does not imply equal treatment between different classes of creditors – Operational creditors’ rights are protected under Section 30(2)(b) and their payment must meet the statutory norms [Paras 28-38].

Approval Process – Role of Adjudicating Authority – Clarified that the Adjudicating Authority's role is to verify compliance with Section 30(2) and not to review the merits of the CoC’s commercial decisions – Once the statutory requirements are met, the resolution plan should be approved without delving into its business merits [Paras 26-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The resolution plan approved by the CoC, meeting the statutory requirements, must be upheld – Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities do not possess jurisdiction to interfere with CoC’s commercial decisions – Appeal dismissed and decisions of lower authorities affirmed [Paras 42-43].

Insolvency – Operational Creditor's Application – Notice of Dispute – The Supreme Court considered the provisions under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – It was held that if a notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility, the adjudicating authority must reject the application – The Court emphasized that at this stage, the adjudicating authority is required only to see if there is a plausible contention that requires further investigation and not whether the defense is likely to succeed – The dispute should not be a patently feeble legal argument or unsupported assertion of fact [Para 12-17].

Insolvency – Existence of Dispute – Genuine Dispute – The Court elaborated on the nature of "existence of dispute," requiring it to be genuine and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory – Reiterated that the adjudicating authority cannot go into the merits of the dispute but only ascertain if a genuine dispute exists – This ensures that operational creditors do not initiate insolvency proceedings prematurely or for extraneous considerations [Para 18-31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT, which had directed the admission of the Section 9 petition – The order of the NCLT, which had dismissed the petition on the grounds of existence of dispute, was upheld [Para 32-34].

Tenancy and Partnership – Dissolution upon Death – The Supreme Court examined the effect of the death of partners on the tenancy rights of a non-residential premises under Section 12(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was held that with the death of both partners and in the absence of a clause permitting the continuation of the partnership by legal heirs, the non-residential tenanted premises is deemed to be vacant, as the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. [Paras 13-14]

Review Petition – Consideration of Subsequent Events – The Court held that subsequent events, such as the death of a partner, must be taken into consideration in review petitions. The High Court failed to consider the death of Pradeep Kumar, which led to the automatic dissolution of the partnership under Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act. [Paras 11, 13]

Doctrine of Merger and Review – The Court reiterated that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not bar the remedy of review if new grounds are presented. The High Court erred in dismissing the review petition without considering the legal implications of the death of the partners on the tenancy. [Paras 9-10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court in the review application dated April 23, 2008, was set aside. The tenanted premises was deemed to be vacant, and the appellants were entitled to seek remedies as per the provisions of the Act. [Paras 14-15]

Murder and Arson – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was accused of setting fire to a house, resulting in the death of three individuals. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's unscathed exit from the house, presence of kerosene stains on the deceased's frock, and alleged motive arising from family disputes. The High Court affirmed the conviction, primarily relying on the absence of injuries on the appellant and her failure to explain the fire.

Chain of Circumstances – The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish key links in the chain, and the conviction was based on conjectures and surmises rather than conclusive evidence. [Paras 10-15]

Suspicion vs. Proof – The Court emphasized that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The reasoning employed by the High Court was found to be speculative, and the absence of injuries on the appellant could not be the sole basis for conviction. The High Court’s conclusion was based on preponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 10-15]

Section 106 of the Evidence Act – The Court clarified that the burden under Section 106 arises only if the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances leading to the accused. The appellant’s failure to explain the cause of the fire was not sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of other conclusive evidence. [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence by the High Court and the Sessions Court were set aside. The appellant was acquitted, and the benefit of doubt was granted in her favor. The appellant, who was on interim bail, was set at liberty, and her bail bond was discharged. [Paras 20-22]

Contempt of Court – Loan Repayment Defaults – The appellants, who guaranteed the repayment of a loan and offered immovable properties as security, failed to comply with court orders to deposit certain amounts, leading to their properties being classified as NPAs. The High Court found the appellants guilty of contempt for issuing post-dated cheques that were dishonored, not appearing in court, and providing false explanations. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings but reduced the sentence of imprisonment already served [Paras 1-34].

SARFAESI Act – Section 17 – Jurisdiction and Procedure – The case involved the appellants challenging actions under the SARFAESI Act, including the issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) for the recovery of dues. The appellants' appeal was dismissed due to non-deposit of the required amount [Paras 3-4].

Contempt of Courts Act – Sections 10 and 12 – Legal Standards and Sanctions – The Court evaluated the appellants' conduct against the legal standards for contempt, emphasizing the wilful nature of disobedience and the impact on judicial proceedings. The appellants' behavior was found to be deceitful and aimed at hoodwinking the court [Paras 10-27].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Disposed of – Held – The Supreme Court confirmed the appellants' guilt for contempt but reduced the imprisonment term to the period already served. The fine imposed by the High Court was also upheld [Paras 32-34].

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act – Government Accommodation – Retired Employees – The Supreme Court held that retired government employees, including those displaced due to terrorism, do not have an indefeasible right to occupy government accommodation on a nominal license fee. Such accommodation is meant for serving government employees to facilitate their duties and not for retirees. The Court emphasized that the humanitarian consideration for displaced persons cannot extend to indefinite retention of government housing meant for active duty personnel [Paras 1-22].

Right to Shelter – Constitutional Perspective – The right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, this right does not equate to a right to government accommodation, especially for retired employees who have received pensionary benefits and other compensations. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing the right to shelter with the necessity of providing government accommodation to serving officers [Paras 15-19].

Judicial Review – High Court Orders – The Supreme Court found that the orders passed by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, which allowed retired employees to retain government accommodation, were without any legal basis or policy support. The Court deemed these orders arbitrary and irrational, thus overturning them [Paras 13-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal by Union of India was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders, restoring the eviction order under the Public Premises Act. The respondent, Onkar Nath Dhar, was granted time until 31st October 2021 to vacate the premises, acknowledging his extended occupation post-retirement. The appellants were directed to submit a report on action taken against similarly situated retired officials by 15th November 2021 [Paras 21-22].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 41 Rule 22 – Cross-objections – Court held that it is not necessary for a respondent to file cross-objections to challenge adverse findings if the decree is wholly in their favor – Objections can be raised against adverse findings of the lower court before the appellate court without a cross-objection – Amendments to Order XLI Rule 22 in 1976 expanded the scope of cross-objections to include adverse findings, and provided different forms for raising them [Paras 1-25].

Constitution of India – Articles 136 and 142 – Application of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC principles to petitions under Article 136 – Supreme Court can permit objections to findings even without cross-objections under its wide powers to do justice under Article 142 – The court can draw principles from Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to allow such objections [Paras 26-27].

Civil Jurisdiction – Exclusion by Statute – Jurisdiction of civil courts can be excluded by specific statutes – Principles for determining exclusion include examining the adequacy of statutory remedies and whether the statute provides for finality of orders by special tribunals – Bar on civil court jurisdiction in matters under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 confirmed [Paras 35-37].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The suit by the first respondent is dismissed as the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – The sale deed in favor of the first respondent was void under Section 5(3) of ULCRA – Costs imposed on the first respondent [Paras 39-40].

Indian Penal Code – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No.1) based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of incriminating materials, and motive. Appellant No.1 was the last person seen with the deceased, provided false information about the deceased's whereabouts, and subsequently absconded. The evidence established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-45].

Indian Penal Code – Section 302 read with 34 – Acquittal of Co-Accused – The Court acquitted Prakash Mahto (Appellant No.2) due to insufficient evidence linking him to the murder. The only substantial evidence against him was that he was last seen with the deceased and Appellant No.1. There was no direct evidence or sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 42-45].

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act – Section 7A – Plea of Juvenility – The Court rejected the plea of juvenility raised by Appellant No.1 at the Supreme Court level, noting discrepancies in the documents provided. The documents presented did not inspire confidence, and the appellant failed to establish prima facie evidence of juvenility as required under the Act [Paras 46-48].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No.1) while acquitting Prakash Mahto (Appellant No.2) due to lack of evidence. The bail bonds of Appellant No.1 were cancelled, and he was directed to surrender. The bail bonds of Appellant No.2 were discharged [Paras 49].