Civil Law - Pensionary Claims - Service Law - Clarification of Judgment - Applicants sought clarification regarding the scope of a previous common judgment concerning disability pension and broad banding - Court observed that observations in a judgment are not to be read as statutory provisions or divorced from the factual context of the case - Held - The common judgment cannot be construed as a precedent for granting disability pension and arrears in every case and each claim must be decided on its own merits - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Precedential Value - Judicial Discipline - Supreme Court precedents - Applicability of judgments to different factual contexts - A difference in facts may make a material difference to the precedential value of a decision - Held - Judicial observations must be read in light of the specific facts of the case and should not be mechanically extended to matters where entitlement remains in dispute - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application disposed of – Court clarified that the common judgment does not mandate the grant of disability pension and arrears in every instance and each case shall be decided on its own merits.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11(6) - Jurisdiction - Appointment of arbitrator - Appellant questioned the Delhi High Court order on grounds that the juridical seat was in Goa - Clause 32.4 of the agreement specified Delhi for arbitration location while Clause 32.5 and Clause 38 designated Goa as the place for proceedings and exclusive jurisdiction of courts - Applying the test in BGS SGS SOMA and Arif Azim Company Limited where the agreement mentions multiple places the Governing Law clause must be read to ascertain the seat - Held - On a holistic reading of the agreement the juridical seat is Goa and the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction - Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-24].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Contract - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 2(e) - Determination of Juridical Seat - When an arbitration clause specifies two different places as venue the intention of parties regarding the seat must be gathered from the entire contract including the governing law and exclusive jurisdiction clauses - Mere mention of a place of arbitration does not constitute a seat if contrary indicia exist in the agreement - Held - Parties intended for Goa to be the seat and exclusive jurisdiction to rest with courts in Goa - [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Order of the High Court set aside - Parties are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional High Court - [Para 24].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Veritable Party - Whether non-signatories to an arbitration agreement can be joined as parties - Dispute involves property acquired by a partnership firm - Appellants alleged a retirement deed was forged and sought arbitration against 1st and 2nd respondents - High Court declined to include 3rd and 4th respondents as they were not signatories to the 09.12.1985 agreement and did not fall under recognized exceptions - Supreme Court found that 3rd and 4th respondents are veritable parties as the outcome of the dispute concerning the subject asset would substantially affect their rights under a subsequent 30.11.2009 partnership deed - Held - Impugned order modified to include 3rd and 4th respondents as veritable parties - [Paras 1-17].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Scope of Referral Court - Whether prima facie finding of being a veritable party precludes adjudication of limitation and estoppel - Supreme Court clarified that findings on whether a non-signatory is a veritable party are prima facie and do not preclude the Arbitral Tribunal from adjudicating on other issues like limitation or estoppel - Held - Question of limitation and the ground of estoppel raised against the appellants are to be left for the consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order modified to include the 3rd and 4th respondents as veritable parties to the arbitration, with all other questions of limitation and estoppel left to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Civil Law - Tender and Contract - Bid Security - Requirement of original document - Appellant submitted Bid Security via e-payment gateway and uploaded a scanned digital receipt - Respondent rejected the bid citing Clause 2.20.6 (ii) of the RFP which requires physical submission of the original - Division Bench of Patna High Court affirmed the rejection - Supreme Court held that where the payment has reached the coffers of the respondent through an official e-payment portal and a digital receipt is provided- demanding an original physical document constitutes a clear perversity and an impossibility in compliance- as the respondent already has full control over the funds - Held - impugned order set aside and contract directed to be awarded to the appellant - [Paras 1-11].

Civil Law - Judicial Review - Tender conditions - Arbitrariness - Rigid adherence to the letter of a document cannot be countenanced when there is a clear impossibility in compliance - While Constitutional Courts should generally defer to the awarder's interpretation of tender documents- such deference is subject to exceptions in cases of mala fide or perverse understanding or application of terms - Held - rejection based on non-production of an original receipt where the digital payment is already in the respondent's account is perverse - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order of the Patna High Court set aside - Respondents directed to facilitate necessary procedures for the appellant to submit Bid Security and for the financial bid to be opened and considered in accordance with tender conditions - [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Appellants filed for amendment to include a challenge to a compromise decree passed in a separate suit T.S. No. 105 of 1998 which was discovered by the original plaintiff during the search for title documents - Trial Court and High Court rejected the application citing delay and potential bar of limitation - Supreme Court held that since the original plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree and the discovery of said decree was supported by evidence of procuring certified copies the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was satisfied - The proposed amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but clarifies the factual controversy regarding title - Held - Orders of trial court and High Court set aside and amendment allowed subject to costs - [Paras 1-23].

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Real Controversy Test - Court held that the primary test is whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and whether it causes injustice or prejudice to the opposite party - Mere delay or the possibility of a time-barred claim does not mandate rejection where the issue is arguable and facts remain in dispute - Avoiding multiplicity of proceedings is a crucial consideration - Held - Amendment permitted to facilitate effective adjudication with liberty for respondents to raise objections regarding limitation and maintainability before the trial court - [Paras 11-22].

Decision: The Civil Appeal is allowed - The impugned orders of the trial court and High Court are set aside - The application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the contesting respondents within two weeks - All questions regarding limitation and maintainability are kept open to be decided by the trial court - [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Land Reforms - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 51(2)(a)(ii) - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 14 - Transformation of limited estate into absolute estate - Deceased Bhumidhar Khajano inherited land as a limited owner under the 1937 Act - Upon the enactment of the HSA 1956, her limited interest transformed into absolute ownership - Consequently the succession upon her death in 1973 is governed by Section 51(2)(a)(ii) read with Section 53 of the Act 1954 rather than Section 51(2)(a)(i) - The phrase personal law in Section 51(2) constitutes a general referential incorporation of the law as it exists at the time of the succession opening - Held - The High Court correctly held that the female Bhumidhar held the property as an absolute owner and the devolution follows the table under Section 53 - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-47].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 51(2) - Literal interpretation and grammar - The use of simple present tense dies in Section 51(2)(a) indicates that the determination of succession is triggered at the time of the death of the Bhumidhar - The Act is a complete code but incorporates personal law to determine the nature of the estate held at the time of demise - Held - The law is progressive and looks to the personal law applicable on the date of succession - [Paras 32-43].

Civil Law - Land Tenancy - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954 - Section 151 - Referential Incorporation - General vs Specific reference - The principle of general referential incorporation implies that the adopting statute includes all subsequent amendments and modifications to the referred body of law - Held - The expression personal law in the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 includes the Hindu Succession Act 1956 in force at the time of death - [Paras 18-20, 39-40].

Decision: Civil Appeal is dismissed - No order as to costs - Pending applications stand disposed of.

Civil Law - Service Law - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules 1955 - Rule 10(a)(i) - Seniority dispute between Direct recruits and temporary appointees - High Court in earlier proceedings directed inter se seniority to be fixed based on date of appointment for Compassionate appointees - Appellants and Respondents in present appeals challenged the determination of seniority by the High Court - Supreme Court analyzed the nature of ad hoc and temporary appointments vs regular selection - Held - Compassionate appointees and Special appointees appointed as temporary measures cannot claim seniority over Direct recruits selected through competitive examination - Direct recruits must rank higher - Ratio Decidendi - Ad hoc or temporary employees cannot claim seniority from the date of initial appointment as such appointments are stopgap arrangements not in accordance with regular procedure - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Service Law - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules 1955 - Rule 10(a)(i) - Inter se seniority between Compassionate appointees and Special appointees - Court examined whether past ad hoc or temporary services can be counted - Held - In absence of specific rules prescribing methodology for counting temporary service for seniority the date of regularisation should be the primary criterion - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013 allowed to the extent that Compassionate appointees shall not rank above Direct recruits of 1983 batch - Civil Appeal Nos. 8756 and 8757 of 2013 disposed of with directions for fixing inter se seniority between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees - T.C.(C) Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 2013 dismissed - Judgment dated 3rd April 2006 modified.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Sexual assault on minor - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material infirmities - FIR lodged with 10 days delay without explanation - Inconsistency in relationship of accused with victim family - Non-examination of material witness (teacher) - Failure of victim to identify accused in Court - Accused set up a credible plea of alibi - Supreme Court held that conviction was unsustainable - Acquittal. [Paras 1-65].

Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Tutored evidence - Victim (PW-4) failed to identify the accused during trial and admitted to being tutored by the Public Prosecutor - Witness testimony discarded as unreliable - [Paras 39-47].

Evidence Law - FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - Delay in lodging FIR - Unexplained delay of 10 days in lodging FIR and material improvements in prosecution story during trial casts doubt on the genuineness of the incident - [Paras 30-33, 54].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Last seen theory - Prosecution failed to establish that the accused and the victim were last seen together - Section 106 cannot be invoked to shift the burden of proof to the accused in the absence of clinching evidence - [Paras 49-50].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Withholding of material witness - Prosecution withheld the school teacher (Ms. Princely) who was the first person the victim allegedly disclosed the incident to - Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution for failure to examine the pivotal witness - [Paras 57-59].

Criminal Law - Cross-Examination - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Right to cross-examine - Trial Court failed to provide an effective opportunity to the accused to cross-examine medical witnesses (PW-3 and PW-8) - Testimony of medical jurists discarded as untested - [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/12/2021 passed by Trial Court and 29/03/2022 passed by High Court set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Writ Law - Right to Health - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices - Petitioners alleged unethical practices by pharmaceutical companies including inducements to medical practitioners leading to over-prescription and irrational drug usage - Sought statutory force for Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices - Union of India contended existing regulatory frameworks and recent introduction of UCPMP 2024 address concerns - Supreme Court observed that efficacy of regulations depends on implementation and oversight - Exercised jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 142 to direct constitution of a committee for comprehensive examination of existing framework and to ensure transparent and accountable practices - Held - Union of India directed to constitute committee and facilitate consultative process - [Paras 1-25].

Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial restraint - Constitution of India - Article 32 - Policy formulation - Court noted that regulation of pharmaceutical industry entails executive policy and technical expertise - Court must remain mindful of separation of powers and not substitute its own policy for that of the executive while ensuring regulatory framework is consistent with constitutional guarantees of right to health - Held - Court role is to facilitate meaningful consultation and ensure accountability rather than entering into policy domain - [Paras 20-21].

Professional Ethics - Medical Misconduct - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 - Regulation 6.8.1 - Restrictions on pharmaceutical industry relationship - Regulations prohibit acceptance of gifts and monetary benefits by medical practitioners from healthcare industry - Violation attracts disciplinary action including removal from medical register - Held - existing framework regulates professional conduct of doctors but does not cover pharmaceutical entities for facilitating such conduct - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions – Union of India directed to constitute a committee to examine pharmaceutical marketing practices and file a compliance affidavit within two weeks of the committee's exercise completion – Listed for further consideration on 29/01/2027.