Civil Law – Abatement of Appeal – Duty to Inform Death of Party – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – High Court Order Set Aside - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment which had dismissed the First Appellate Court’s decree on grounds of abatement for non-substitution of deceased respondents’ heirs—Held, defendants were under a legal duty under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC to inform the court and plaintiffs about the deaths during the First Appeal—Failure to disclose the death amounts to abuse of process and parties cannot derive advantage from their own omission—Remand directed for fresh hearing of the Second Appeal [Paras 1-79].

Doctrine of No Advantage from Own Wrong – Nullus Commodum Capere Potest de Injuria Sua Propria – Applicability to Civil Litigation – The Court distinguished between the legal maxims ‘ex injuria jus non oritur’ and ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’—Held, Rule 10A CPC is intended to prevent parties from gaining advantage through suppression of death of a party—Observations made on ethical obligations of pleaders and equitable principles requiring courts to avoid legal technicalities defeating substantive justice—High Court failed to appreciate these principles [Paras 45-56].

Equitable Considerations – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – Importance of Rule 10A CPC – The Court observed that Rule 10A CPC, though procedural and lacking penal consequences, has substantial equitable impact—Failure to comply requires courts to assess abatement claims carefully, balancing justice over procedural lapse—Second Appeal restored to High Court for fresh adjudication—Directions issued to decide the matter on merits, considering decree’s nature (joint or divisible) and allowing opportunity to cure abatement if necessary [Paras 70-79].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Second Appeal Restored – The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, restored Second Appeal No. 190 of 2008 to the High Court's file, and directed expeditious disposal within three months, emphasizing that courts must prevent abuse of process through suppression of material facts [Paras 73-79].

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].

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].

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].

Motor Accident Claim – Liability under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act – Joint Liability Clarified – The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal by the Tribunal, holding that under Section 163A, proof of negligence is not required and the deceased was a ‘third party’ in respect of the offending vehicle – Directed compensation to be payable solely by the insurer of the offending dumper vehicle (National Insurance Co. Ltd.), exonerating the insurer of the deceased driver’s truck (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) from liability [Paras 11-17].

Compensation Determination – Structured Formula under Section 163A – Recalculation Made – The Court revised the compensation from ₹15,00,000/- awarded by High Court to ₹4,77,839/-, applying income limit of ₹40,000/- per annum, multiplier of 17, and deductions under the Second Schedule – Clarified that lump sum or additional heads like loss of love and affection are not permissible beyond the structured formula under Section 163A [Paras 13-15].

Third Party Status – Driver's Classification – Deceased as 'Third Party' – The Court held the deceased driver of his own truck involved in collision with another vehicle is a ‘third party’ to the offending vehicle, based on absence of contrary evidence from insurer of dumper vehicle and fatal injuries to deceased – Reiterated obligation of offending vehicle’s insurer to indemnify claimants [Paras 17].

Apportionment of Compensation – Distribution among Dependents – Court directed compensation to be released among six dependents in the ratio of 50:10:10:10:10:10, with rider that deceased's mother’s share to revert to first claimant (wife) if not alive [Para 18].

Reimbursement of Deposits – Direction to Refund Excess Deposits – Amount deposited by insurer of deceased driver (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) ordered to be refunded, directing only National Insurance Co. Ltd. to bear awarded compensation – Balance to be refunded with proportionate interest [Para 19].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Compensation Recalculated – Insurer of deceased truck driver exonerated – Offending vehicle insurer held solely liable for revised compensation amount – Decree modified accordingly [Paras 19].

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].

Criminal Law -  Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 120B and 420 of the - Appeal by Victim Against Acquittal  – Corporate Entity as Victim – Section 2(wa) CrPC – Right of Appeal Upheld – In a case involving sale of counterfeit products infringing trademarks and copyrights, the Court held that the appellant company Asian Paints Limited qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC, having suffered commercial and reputational injury due to the criminal acts – The Court clarified that juristic persons like companies are covered under the definition of ‘victim’ and are entitled to file appeal under Section 372 CrPC – High Court’s dismissal of appeal as non-maintainable was set aside and matter remitted for decision on merits [Paras 36-37, 51-52].

Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Independent and Standalone Remedy – Not Constrained by Section 378 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the right conferred on a ‘victim’ under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a substantive and independent right, not restricted by Section 378 CrPC – Appeal by victim is maintainable against acquittal orders, including those passed by the First Appellate Court – Procedural limitations applicable to State or complainant under Section 378 do not dilute the victim’s substantive right to appeal [Paras 43-44, 47].

Appeal Against First Appellate Court Order – Next Level Appeal Permissible – Victim Can Challenge Acquittal in High Court – The Court clarified that where acquittal occurs at First Appellate Court level, the victim’s appeal lies to the next higher court i.e., the High Court – Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is applicable even in such situations – High Court’s restrictive interpretation rejected [Paras 45-47].

Victim Need Not Be Complainant – Distinction Upheld – Corporate Victim’s Right Recognized – The Court upheld the principle that a victim under Section 2(wa) need not be the original complainant or informant – Despite the FIR being lodged by an investigator, the company suffering direct injury is the victim and entitled to file appeal – Distinction between ‘victim’ and ‘complainant’ reaffirmed [Paras 23, 44].

Purpose of Victim Appeal Right – Expansive Interpretation Favoured – The Court reiterated that the 2009 amendment introducing Section 372 proviso was intended to strengthen victim rights in the justice process, granting a right of participation and remedy to victims against acquittals or inadequate outcomes – Liberal and purposive construction of the victim’s right to appeal was adopted [Paras 49-50].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Appeal Restored for Merits Hearing – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order rejecting maintainability, restored the appeal before High Court for consideration on merits, and directed expeditious hearing in light of the prolonged pendency since 2016 [Paras 51-52].

Motor Accident Compensation – Negligence and Identification of Vehicle – Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Restored – High Court erred in setting aside Tribunal’s award by disbelieving involvement of the offending vehicle based on delay in lodging FIR and inconsistency in eyewitness testimony – Supreme Court held that Murg report was registered on the same day of accident and existence of eyewitness (PW-2) proved accident – Held: Compensation as granted by Tribunal reinstated [Paras 2-8].

Delay in FIR – Effect on Compensation – Delay not Fatal – The Court ruled that mere delay of three months in registering FIR does not invalidate claim when accident was contemporaneously recorded via Murg report and verified by police – Held: Absence of investigating officer’s testimony further weakens insurance company’s defence [Paras 6-7].

Reliability of Eyewitness – Minor Inconsistencies Not Material – Court found High Court’s dismissal of PW-2’s deposition erroneous since minor discrepancies regarding number plate color were inconsequential to the proof of accident and involvement of vehicle – Held: Eyewitness account credible [Para 6].

Direction for Compensation Disbursement – Expeditious Payment – Supreme Court directed insurance company to deposit awarded compensation within two months before Tribunal – Amount to be equally apportioned among widow and three minor children, with minor’s share to be secured in fixed deposits until majority – Held: Expeditious payment mandatory to mitigate delay caused due to wrongful denial [Para 8].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Tribunal award restored – Appeal allowed with directions to pay compensation with interest within two months [Paras 8-9].

Civil Appeal – Tenancy Rights – Communidade Compromise – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant, Communidade of Tivim, sought permission to enter into a compromise with tenants declaring bifurcation of land in a 60:40 ratio – Administrative Tribunal rejected the permission on grounds that it would effectively convert tenancy rights into full ownership rights, allowing non-agricultural use, thus violating the Goa Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 – High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the compromise illegal as it defeated the statutory framework protecting tenancy rights and agricultural land use [Paras 6-21].

Tenancy Rights – Permissible Modes of Termination – Section 9 of Tenancy Act – The Court held that tenancy under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act can only be terminated by surrender under Section 10, by landlord under Section 11 on limited grounds, or under other statutory provisions – The compromise sought by the Communidade bypassed these provisions and was therefore invalid [Para 16].

Ownership Rights – Deemed Purchase under Section 18A – Procedure under Tenancy Act Mandatory – The Supreme Court reiterated that tenants can only be deemed to have purchased land through the process outlined in Chapter IIA of the Tenancy Act, involving Mamlatdar’s approval and determination of purchase price – The compromise arrangement illegally sought to grant full ownership without following these statutory safeguards [Paras 17-18].

Land Use Restrictions – Violation of Land Use Act – The Court emphasized Section 2 of the Land Use Act, which prohibits non-agricultural use of land vested in tenants – The proposed compromise allowed parties to use land for non-agricultural purposes, in direct contravention of statutory prohibitions, thus rendering it illegal [Para 18].

Communidade Code – Scope of Article 30(4)(g) – Limited Power – The Supreme Court clarified that while the Communidade may deliberate on compromise proposals under Article 30(4)(g), final approval vests with the Administrative Tribunal under Article 154(3), and such approval cannot be granted in violation of tenancy or land use laws [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court and Tribunal's findings, and clarified that it expressed no view on merits of tenancy claims pending before the Appellate Court, which must be decided in accordance with law [Paras 22-23].