Recovery Proceedings under SEBI Act – Liability to Pay Interest on Unpaid Penalty – Appeals Dismissed – The appellants, promoter-directors of a listed company, challenged SEBI’s recovery proceedings including attachment of accounts for non-payment of penalties imposed for insider trading violations – SEBI issued demand notices in 2022 with interest calculated from the date of adjudication orders in 2014 – Held: Once adjudication orders specifying a payment period attain finality, statutory interest accrues from expiry of such period, not from the date of subsequent demand notice – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld SEBI’s action of recovering penalty along with interest from the date of adjudication orders [Paras 1-2, 6-7, 11.7].

SEBI Act – Interpretation of Section 28A – Incorporation of Income Tax Recovery Provisions – Legal Position Clarified – Section 28A of SEBI Act incorporates Sections 220 to 227 of the Income Tax Act for recovery proceedings, making interest under Section 220(2) applicable to SEBI dues – The Court clarified that this is legislation by reference, meaning amendments and explanations (including Explanation 4 inserted in 2019) are applicable, making interest payable from the date penalty became payable – Explained: adjudication orders themselves constitute enforceable demand, no separate demand notice under Section 156 IT Act is necessary for SEBI recovery [Paras 9.4, 9.7-9.9].

Commencement of Interest – Rejection of Demand Notice Argument – The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that interest should run only from the demand notice of 2022 – It was held that interest liability arises from non-payment post the period mentioned in adjudication orders – The demand notice was merely a reminder, and allowing interest to run from demand notice would incentivize defaults – The Court held the adjudication order is sufficient statutory trigger for interest accrual [Paras 11.1-11.3].

Nature of Interest on Penalty – Compensatory, Not Penal – The Court emphasized that interest on unpaid penalty is compensatory in nature, designed to compensate the exchequer for delayed payment – Held: even without explicit mention in the original order, liability for interest arises statutorily under Section 28A SEBI Act read with Section 220 IT Act, thus negating arguments of retrospective imposition [Paras 10, 11.5].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the validity of SEBI’s attachment and recovery actions including levy of interest at 12% per annum from the date of expiry of payment period stipulated in adjudication orders – Appeals dismissed with direction to appellants to pay the balance interest within 15 days [Paras 11.6-11.7].

Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Improper Exclusion from PPSC – Violation of Article 320 – Recruitment Process Quashed - The appellants challenged the selection of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Punjab undertaken without consulting the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), violating Article 320 and the 1955 Regulations – The Supreme Court held that the posts were within the purview of the PPSC and could not be removed without following the statutory procedure prescribed under the 1955 Regulations – The retrospective amendment of Regulations after the recruitment was concluded was held invalid and ineffective [Paras 24-26, 28-32].

UGC Regulations – Applicability of UGC (2010) Regulations – State Bound by Adoption – Recruitment Must Follow UGC Norms - The State of Punjab had adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 by incorporation, which remained binding despite their repeal by UGC Regulations, 2018 – The Supreme Court held that recruitment of Assistant Professors must comply with UGC norms, including academic performance indicators (API) and qualitative assessments, rather than solely relying on multiple-choice question-based tests [Paras 33-41, 46-47].

Policy Decision – Arbitrariness in Recruitment Process – Political Expediency Disapproved - The Court observed that the recruitment process was altered post-haste before State elections, replacing a time-tested UGC compliant process with a simplified test lacking qualitative assessment – Such arbitrary and hasty decision-making, bypassing institutional safeguards and violating established legal norms, was held to be impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 30-32, 48-52, 58].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Established Recruitment Practices – Deviation Without Justification Invalid - The Court reiterated that any deviation from long-standing recruitment practices requires valid justification – The State’s abrupt change in recruitment policy without valid reasons, undermining fairness, transparency, and established standards, was held to violate the doctrine of legitimate expectation and constitutional guarantees of non-arbitrariness [Paras 58-59].

Final Decision – Recruitment Quashed – Fresh Process Directed - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Division Bench judgment, quashed the entire recruitment process for Assistant Professors and Librarians, and directed the State of Punjab to initiate a fresh recruitment process as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, now applicable in the State [Paras 60-61].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Presumption Properly Raised – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 138 NI Act, arguing that foundational facts were not proved and no presumption under Sections 118 and 139 should have been raised – Held: Respondent had proved foundational facts and appellant failed to rebut presumption – High Court rightly convicted appellant – No interference called for [Paras 5–9].

Compensation – Quantum of Fine – No Double Recovery – The appellant argued that compensation awarded was disproportionate as the respondent was granted the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in addition to a fine – Held: Fine imposed was Rs.10,10,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC – There was no separate or excess compensation – Argument rejected [Paras 10–14].

Fine and Sentence – Justified in Facts – The Court held that the imposition of fine equivalent to the cheque amount was in consonance with the law laid down in R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260 – There was no illegality or excessiveness in sentencing – No reduction warranted [Paras 11–14].

Time to Pay Fine – Three Months Granted – On request of counsel for the appellant, the Court granted three months’ time to deposit the fine amount – In default, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months – Amount to be paid to respondent upon deposit [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with modification regarding time to pay – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant granted three months to deposit cheque amount; default will attract simple imprisonment for six months [Paras 14–16].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 376 IPC – Exception in Peculiar Circumstances – Continuation Unnecessary – The appeals arose from refusal by High Court to quash criminal cases including Section 376 IPC despite mutual settlement – Supreme Court noted second FIR (376 IPC) was lodged immediately after first FIR by opposite side and complainant categorically expressed no intention to pursue case – Held: Though ordinarily Section 376 IPC cases are not quashed on settlement, facts justified exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process [Paras 3, 5-8].

Settlement After Serious Allegations – Consent of Complainant Considered – Complainant affirmed before Court, through affidavit, that she is settled post-marriage and further prosecution would disrupt personal life – Supreme Court recognized the voluntary, consistent, and unambiguous stand of complainant to withdraw from prosecution as a decisive factor – Held: Court's powers under Section 482 CrPC remain flexible to secure ends of justice in special facts [Paras 5-8].

Second FIR Lodged as Retaliation – Contextual Consideration – The second FIR, containing graver charges, followed a first FIR filed against complainant’s side alleging assault – Supreme Court inferred possible retaliatory motive and concluded continued trial would cause harassment without achieving justice – All proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 7-9].

Final Relief – Quashing Allowed – Supreme Court quashed both FIR No. 302/2023 and FIR No. 304/2023, including Sessions Case No. 29/2024 – High Court’s order refusing quashment set aside – Reaffirmed that inherent powers should be exercised prudently to prevent misuse of criminal law machinery [Paras 9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Quashing - Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating – Prima Facie Offence Established – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Set Aside – Appellant, a daughter deprived of share in ancestral property, alleged fraudulent exclusion from compensation awarded on land acquisition – High Court quashed criminal proceedings based on Sub-Registrar’s statement and pending civil suit – Supreme Court held prima facie case exists under Sections 120B, 415, 420 IPC – Held: Quashing unjustified; fraudulent family tree and partition deed used to siphon public compensation warrants criminal trial [Paras 2-18].

Bar of Civil Suit – No Bar on Criminal Prosecution – Distinct Remedies – Supreme Court reiterated that pendency of civil suits for partition and declaration does not preclude criminal proceedings – Referring to K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, Court clarified that civil and criminal remedies are coextensive and prosecution is maintainable where criminal intent is alleged – Held: Coexistence of civil proceedings does not shield accused from criminal liability when ingredients of cheating and criminal conspiracy are satisfied [Paras 19-23].

Fraudulent Family Tree and Partition Deed – Material Disputes Require Trial – High Court erred in relying solely on Sub-Registrar’s untested statements – Supreme Court observed that fabrication of family tree excluding daughters and forged partition deed involving huge compensation amount are serious allegations needing thorough trial – Held: Genuineness of documents cannot be concluded in writ jurisdiction; criminal prosecution to proceed [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Restored – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court order quashing proceedings, and directed continuation of criminal trial against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per law – Emphasized necessity of trial for adjudication of serious allegations involving property rights and criminal misconduct [Paras 24-25].

Cheque Dishonour – Liability under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint Set Aside – The High Court had quashed the complaint filed by the appellant on grounds of non-issuance of statutory notice to the partnership firm and failure to arraign the firm as an accused – Supreme Court held that under Section 141 of the Act, a firm is merely a compendious expression for its partners, who are personally, jointly, and severally liable for its acts – Held: Complaint maintainable even without arraigning the firm as accused or serving statutory notice to the firm, provided partners are issued notice and made parties – Permission granted to implead partnership firm as an accused – Impugned order quashing complaint set aside and matter restored to trial court for disposal on merits [Paras 2-12].

Company vs. Partnership Firm – Distinction in Liability – Partnership Firm Not a Separate Juristic Entity – Unlike a company which enjoys distinct legal personality and creates vicarious liability for directors, a partnership firm lacks separate legal existence from its partners – Held: Partners of a firm are personally liable and bound by joint and several liability for actions done in the firm’s name – Notice to partners equals notice to firm – Omission to implead firm is curable and does not invalidate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act [Paras 6.1-7.24].

Interpretation of Section 141 – Legal Fiction of ‘Company’ includes Firm – The term ‘company’ under Section 141 includes a partnership firm by legal fiction – Held: While in company matters directors can be liable vicariously, in partnership the partners are directly, jointly, and severally liable along with the firm – Even absent arraignment of firm as accused, complaint can proceed against partners under joint liability principle – Distinction in treatment of firms and companies upheld to prevent misuse of Section 141 by rigid procedural technicalities [Paras 9.1-9.11].

Decision – Complaint Restored – High Court Judgment Reversed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Madras High Court which had quashed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, permitted the appellant to implead the partnership firm as an accused, restored the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and directed disposal in accordance with law [Paras 10-12].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Rejection of Plaint – Rejection of Plaint on Ground of Res Judicata Set Aside – The appellant challenged the orders of the Trial Court and High Court which allowed rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata due to an earlier ex parte decree – Supreme Court held that adjudication on res judicata involves an analysis of previous pleadings, judgments, and facts which cannot be undertaken merely on averments in an Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: Res judicata must be decided at trial, particularly when fraud and collusion are alleged, and plaint contains specific pleadings regarding invalidity of earlier decree – Appeal allowed, suit restored [Paras 3-12].

Fraud Allegations – Collusive Ex Parte Decree – Prima Facie Bar of Res Judicata Inapplicable – Appellant pleaded fraud and collusion in obtaining ex parte decree in prior partition suit, alleged suppression of material facts during purchase of property – Supreme Court held that whether prior decree binds appellant requires detailed inquiry into facts and circumstances, and such issues cannot be summarily decided at preliminary stage – Held: Fraud allegations require trial stage determination, not rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 4-10].

Res Judicata – Principles Clarified – Examination at Trial Stage Required – Referring to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. and Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Supreme Court reiterated that res judicata can only be decided upon full appreciation of prior proceedings, pleadings, and judgments, not solely on plaint averments – Held: Courts below erred in rejecting plaint without trial; appeal allowed and suit restored [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – Suit Restored – Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, restored the suit to original number and directed expeditious disposal considering pendency since 2009 – Clarified no opinion on merits; all defences including res judicata to remain open for trial determination [Paras 13-15].

Civil Law – Fresh Suit  – Res Judicata – Section 11 CPC – Relief Barred – Earlier findings upheld - The plaintiff’s challenge based on coercion and misrepresentation regarding the execution of Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds was earlier rejected by three courts – The issue now raised was identical and held barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC – Held: Liberty granted by High Court in second appeal did not revive adjudicated claims or create new cause of action [Paras 5-6, 9-10].

Limitation – Fresh Suit Filed Based on Liberty Reserved – Claim Time-Barred – Agreements Executed in 1998 - The second suit filed by plaintiff for declaration and possession was barred by limitation, as the cause of action dated back to the execution of agreements in 1998 – The liberty granted in second appeal cannot override statutory limitation periods – Held: No application of Section 14 of Limitation Act; suit not before wrong forum but improperly framed [Paras 7, 10].

Civil Procedure – Order 23 CPC – Leave to File Fresh Suit – No Immunity from Limitation – Order 23 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC Considered - Though liberty to file a comprehensive suit was granted, it does not extend to revive barred or decided claims – The High Court rightly observed that Order 23 CPC does not exempt parties from adhering to limitation laws [Para 7].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit Deficient – Important Stakeholders Not Impleaded – Belgaum Urban Development Authority and Badminton Association were necessary parties to the dispute concerning civic amenities and property layout – Held: Suit rightly found defective for non-joinder [Para 11].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Findings of High Court Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that the second suit was barred by limitation and res judicata and that liberty granted earlier did not override legal bars – Held: No interference warranted – SLP dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Matrimonial Law - Admissibility of Secretly Recorded Conversations – Balance between Right to Fair Trial and Privacy – Section 122 of Indian Evidence Act – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband challenging the High Court’s decision disallowing the admission of secretly recorded conversations in a matrimonial proceeding – Held: Spousal communications recorded during marriage are admissible under the exception provided in Section 122 of the Evidence Act where litigation is between spouses – Privacy rights under Article 21 cannot override the right to fair trial in matrimonial disputes – The order of the Family Court allowing such evidence was restored [Paras 8-13].

Spousal Privilege – Exception in Divorce Proceedings – Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Privilege Not Absolute – The Court clarified that Section 122 establishes privilege over spousal communications but expressly carves out an exception in cases of proceedings between spouses – Disclosure of such communications in divorce proceedings is permissible without the consent of the other spouse – High Court’s reasoning invoking privilege was incorrect [Paras 8.1-10.1].

Right to Privacy – Constitutional Scope – Article 21 – Privacy Cannot Override Statutory Exceptions – The Court held that privacy between spouses is protected under common law principles but is subject to statutory exceptions under Section 122 – In matrimonial disputes, privacy does not prevent relevant evidence from being introduced, ensuring balance with the right to fair trial – Constitutional privacy protections are not absolute in private disputes between spouses [Paras 11-12].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Audio Recordings – Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act – Admissibility Upheld with Safeguards – Secretly recorded spousal communications are admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, subject to authentication and compliance with Section 65B certification requirements – The Family Court was correct in accepting electronic evidence including CDs, transcripts, and memory cards [Paras 9.5-10.6].

Precedence of Fair Trial – Balancing Competing Rights – Doctrine of Proportionality Applied – The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, concluding that in matrimonial disputes, admitting evidence like secret recordings is essential to enable a fair adjudication of claims of cruelty or other matrimonial offences, without disregarding legitimate privacy concerns, which are protected by procedural safeguards such as in-camera proceedings [Paras 10.3-12.6].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and restored the Family Court’s order allowing the appellant-husband to submit the supplementary affidavit and electronic recordings in divorce proceedings – Directed the Family Court to consider the evidence in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs [Para 13].