Civil Procedure – Order 2 Rule 2 – Bar on Subsequent Suits – The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC are intended to prevent multiple suits based on the same cause of action. When a plaintiff omits to claim a relief that could have been claimed in an earlier suit, they cannot subsequently claim that relief without having obtained leave of the court [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Identity in Subsequent Suits – For Order 2 Rule 2(2) and (3) to apply, the cause of action in the subsequent suit must be the same as in the first suit. The cause of action includes every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to succeed in the suit. In this case, the foundation for both the reliefs of injunction and specific performance was based on the agreements dated 27.07.2005 [Paras 11-12].

Premature Suits – A suit claiming relief to which the plaintiff may become entitled at a subsequent point in time cannot per se be dismissed as premature. The plaintiff is not required to wait until the expiry of the due date for performance if the defendant has made their intentions clear through overt acts [Paras 15].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – The learned Single Judge of the High Court was bound by the earlier Division Bench decision of the same court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the view that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC applies only when the first suit is disposed of. The rule seeks to avoid multiplicity of litigation on the same cause of action, applying even when the second suit is filed during the pendency of the first suit [Paras 16].

Decision – The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madras were set aside. The plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off [Para 17].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – The appellant, facing allegations of forgery and cheating, sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to uncover all material information and documents related to the alleged offences [Paras 5-6, 12].

Forgery and Cheating – Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC – The appellant was accused of forging documents and submitting false information to obtain permissions from educational authorities. The Court highlighted the seriousness of these allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation [Paras 8-9].

Custodial Interrogation – Justification – The Court reasoned that custodial interrogation was essential to secure possession of potentially forged documents and to investigate the appellant's alleged false representations to public authorities [Paras 12-13].

Interim Protection – Misuse Allegations – The respondents alleged that the appellant misused interim protection granted by the Court, hindering the investigation and intimidating witnesses. This further justified the need for custodial interrogation [Para 13].

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim protection, and granted the appellant two weeks to surrender and seek regular bail. The trial court was directed to decide on the regular bail application independently of the observations made regarding the anticipatory bail [Paras 14-15].

Representing Advocates:

For Appellant: Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, V. Prakash, Vineet Naik, Sukand Kulkarni, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishor Sah, Anish R. Shah

For Respondents: Chinmoy Khaldkar, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair, Prashant Bhushan

Professional Course Admissions – Carry Forward of Vacant Seats – The Court held that a medical seat vacant in one academic year cannot be carried forward to the next year in the absence of any rule or regulation permitting such an action. The principle of carrying forward vacant seats is not applicable to professional courses like medical, engineering, or dental courses [Paras 12, 14].

Cut-off Dates for Admissions – The cut-off date for admissions, as prescribed by the Court, is to be strictly adhered to. For medical courses, this date is 30th September of the respective academic year. No admissions can be made after this date, and any unfilled seat loses its validity after the cut-off date [Paras 11-12].

Merit and Fairness in Admissions – The appellant, who was lower in merit than other candidates, sought admission to an unfilled MBBS seat from 2010 in the year 2012. The Court emphasized that granting this seat to the appellant would be unjust to higher-ranked candidates who either accepted other courses or did not claim the seat due to ongoing litigation. Merit and fairness must guide the admission process [Paras 11, 13].

Judicial Precedent and Exceptional Orders – The Court acknowledged that previous orders directing the accommodation of candidates in succeeding years were issued under extraordinary circumstances and should not be considered precedents for regular admission processes. Such directions cannot contravene statutory rules and regulations [Paras 14].

Decision – The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellant had no legal right to claim the vacant MBBS seat from 2010 in the subsequent years. The Division Bench's judgment was upheld [Paras 15].

State Financial Corporations Act – Section 29 – Recovery and Auction Sale – The Court upheld the actions taken by the OSFC under Section 29 of the SFC Act after the first respondent failed to comply with multiple One-Time Settlement (OTS) offers and court orders. The appellant's acquisition of the property through auction was found to be lawful and procedural [Paras 8, 21].

OTS Scheme – Non-compliance by Borrower – The first respondent was given multiple opportunities to settle its dues under the OTS scheme but failed to meet the terms and deadlines. The Court emphasized that repeated defaults by the borrower justify the invocation of Section 29 for recovery [Paras 5-7, 11].

Auction Sale – Procedural Compliance – The Court noted that the auction process conducted by OSFC was in accordance with the required procedures, including the issuance of notices, valuation of property, and public auction. The highest bid by the appellant was accepted, and the sale was completed lawfully [Paras 21, 27].

Judicial Discipline – Respecting Co-ordinate Bench Decisions – The Division Bench of the High Court was found to have erred by reopening a matter already decided by a co-ordinate Bench. The principles of judicial discipline require that a co-ordinate Bench respects and follows the decisions of another Bench [Paras 19, 22].

Decision – The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court was set aside. The directions to offer a fresh OTS scheme and to dispossess the appellant were quashed. The Court found no illegality in the actions taken by OSFC and upheld the auction sale in favor of the appellant [Paras 28-29].

Arbitration – Applicability of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to international commercial arbitrations held outside India – Dispute arising out of a contract with an arbitration clause stipulating arbitration in London under English law – Arbitral awards challenged in Indian courts under Section 34 of the Act – Held, Part I of the Act applies to all arbitrations, including international commercial arbitrations, unless explicitly excluded by the parties – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-146].

Foreign Awards – Enforcement in India – Respondent sought enforcement of awards in Indian courts despite ongoing proceedings in foreign courts – Supreme Court emphasized maintaining status quo and respecting concurrent jurisdiction – Reinforced the need for proper judicial process in enforcing foreign awards while recognizing public policy considerations [Paras 37-47, 145-146].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Conflict of decisions – Addressed issues of conflicting jurisdictions between Indian and foreign courts – Stressed on maintaining legal and procedural integrity in both jurisdictions – Highlighted risks of conflicting decisions undermining the enforcement process under the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law [Paras 145-146].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 applies to international commercial arbitrations held outside India unless expressly excluded – Awards to be enforced while maintaining status quo as per previous judicial directions – Emphasis on judicial coherence and adherence to public policy.

Education Law – Admission Procedures – Candidates applying for medical courses under the Central pool quota do not need to appear for the common medical entrance test (DUMET). Selection based on merit among applicants from the specified categories – Held that the reservation of seats for Central pool nominees is constitutionally valid, provided selection is merit-based within the reserved categories [Paras 1-18]​​ .

Constitutional Law – Validity of Reservation – Reservation of seats for Central pool nominees does not violate Articles 14 or 15 of the Constitution – Such reservation is within the policy domain of the government and is justified based on the overall assessment of the educational needs of specific categories of students including those from states without adequate medical education infrastructure [Paras 9-11, 17-18] .

Graduate Medical Education Regulations – Compliance – The selection process for Central pool seats must comply with the merit criteria outlined in Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations – Even if not all aspects of merit determination were strictly followed for the academic year 2011-2012, admissions already made should not be disturbed under Article 142 of the Constitution. Future admissions must ensure compliance with the amended MCI Regulations requiring minimum marks in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) [Paras 12-16, 18] .

Decision: Appeals disposed of with directions to ensure merit-based selection for future admissions under the Central pool quota, with existing admissions for the academic year 2011-2012 remaining undisturbed .

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 395, 396, and 397 of IPC upheld. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of the house's inmates and corroborated by medical evidence. Identification of the appellant in court was deemed sufficient despite the absence of a TIP, as the witness had a clear opportunity to observe the assailants during the crime [Paras 1-18]​​.

Identification of Accused – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The non-holding of a TIP was considered non-relevant in this case. The victim identified the appellant in court without hesitation, and her testimony was consistent and credible. The Court emphasized that the primary concern is whether the witness had a sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the commission of the crime [Paras 12-14, 17-18]​​.

Evidence – Corroboration by Medical Evidence – Medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony, with injuries matching the description of the attack. The postmortem report and the medical examination of the injured victim provided strong support for the prosecution's case [Paras 10-11]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – The appellant's conviction under Sections 395, 396, and 397 IPC is upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim and corroborating medical evidence. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the lack of a TIP and the insufficiency of evidence [Para 14]​​.

Education Law – Recognition of Unaided Schools – The respondent's school, Betham English Medium School, established in 2001, sought recognition in 2003. The application was rejected due to non-compliance with the procedural rules under Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and the government policy outlined in GO (P) No. 107/07/G Edn dated 13.06.2007. The High Court's direction to grant recognition was contested by the State, emphasizing that recognition cannot be claimed as a matter of right without adherence to the laid down procedure​​.

Procedural Compliance – Rule 2 and Rule 2A of KER – Applications for opening new schools or upgrading existing ones must be in response to a notification issued under Rule 2A(1). The respondent's school, despite having sufficient infrastructure, did not follow this procedure. The Court reiterated that deviation from these rules cannot be allowed to prevent discrimination, arbitrariness, and favoritism​​.

Government Policy on Recognition – As per the policy, unaided schools need not be given recognition in the future, and existing schools must meet specific criteria. The High Court's judgment, which overlooked this policy, was found to be inconsistent with the established rules and precedents​​.

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Recognition already granted to the respondent school for the academic year 2010-11 onwards is upheld as a special case, considering the school's location in a tribal area and recommendations from the local body. This order is not to be treated as a precedent​​.

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – The appellant, convicted for murder under Sections 302/149 IPC, was found to be a juvenile on the date of the offense after an inquiry directed by the Supreme Court. The determination of juvenility was based on a thorough investigation following Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The Court emphasized that raising the plea for juvenility at the appellate stage is permissible​​.

Juvenile Justice – Sentence – Considering the appellant had already undergone more than three years of the sentence, which is the maximum period prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Supreme Court set aside the sentence while sustaining the conviction. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case​​.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld, sentence set aside. Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case​​.