Arbitration – Bias Allegations – Contractor alleged bias on part of arbitrator, Chief Engineer of the respondent corporation, claiming unfair treatment and procedural irregularities – Supreme Court held that mere apprehension of bias without substantial evidence is not sufficient – Arbitrator's involvement in contract supervision did not disqualify him from acting as arbitrator, as agreed in the contract – Appeal dismissed, arbitration award upheld [Paras 1-33].

Arbitration Procedure – Arbitrator's Appointment – Arbitrator, being the Chief Engineer of the respondent corporation, was appointed as per arbitration clause in contract – Contractor's later objection to the arbitrator's appointment deemed unfounded, as it was not raised initially – Court emphasized that arbitration agreement terms are binding unless a valid ground for exclusion of named arbitrator is established [Paras 1-33].

Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – Court clarified that a reasonable apprehension of bias must be based on tangible evidence – Contractor failed to provide concrete evidence showing bias or misconduct by arbitrator – Allegations considered speculative and insufficient to overturn arbitration award [Paras 1-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitration award affirmed – No costs awarded.

Medical Education – Recognition of Foreign Degrees – Students obtained MBBS degrees from the Bangkok campus of VMRF – Degrees not recognized by the Medical Council of Thailand at the time of awarding – As per Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, degrees must be recognized in the country where the institution is located for eligibility to appear in India's screening test – Appeals dismissed, upholding the ineligibility of the degrees [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility for Screening Test – Compliance with Regulations – Court emphasized that students must possess primary medical qualifications recognized by the country where the institution is based – VMRF’s Bangkok degrees lacked this recognition – Held that provisional certificates from VMRF Bangkok campus did not fulfill the requirement of primary medical qualification under Regulation 4(1) of the 2002 Regulations [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Review – Previous Cases Distinguished – Appellants’ reliance on Soham Mayankumar Vyas case found inapplicable due to differing factual circumstances – Court maintained stringent adherence to statutory regulations regarding recognition and eligibility criteria [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Students holding MBBS degrees from VMRF’s Bangkok campus declared ineligible for the screening test – No costs awarded.

Civil Services – Unauthorized Absence – Dismissal from Service – Respondent, a medical professional, took leave and went abroad without permission, joined foreign service, and did not respond to the state's notices – Departmental proceedings initiated, resulting in dismissal under Article 311(3) of the Constitution and Rule 18(ii) of Kerala Civil Services Rules – High Court Division Bench's compassionate reinstatement order reversed by Supreme Court – No violation of Articles 14 and 311(3) found [Paras 1-8].

Departmental Inquiry – Justification for Summary Dismissal – Supreme Court held regular departmental inquiry unnecessary due to undisputed facts of misconduct – Respondent failed to offer a valid explanation for unauthorized absence and foreign employment – Action of the State Government in dismissing the respondent justified [Paras 6-7].

Discrimination Claim – Argument of discriminatory treatment compared to other similarly situated doctors rejected – Supreme Court emphasized gravity of respondent's misconduct, noting impact on patient care due to absence of an anesthesiologist – Dismissal held not violative of Article 14 [Para 7].

Delay in Legal Challenge – Supreme Court noted respondent's delay of over two years in filing writ petition challenging dismissal – Held High Court should have dismissed petition on grounds of laches [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Order of the Single Judge dismissing writ petition restored – No costs awarded.

Preventive Detention – Habitual Offender – Appellant detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 – Grounds of detention based on multiple criminal activities causing public disorder – High Court upheld detention order – Supreme Court dismissed appeal, affirming preventive detention justified due to habitual criminal activity and threat to public order [Paras 1-20].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Court distinguished between issues of law and order and public order – Held appellant’s activities, including threats and violence with weapons in public spaces, disrupted public order – Supported Detaining Authority's decision under preventive detention laws [Paras 7, 12-13].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Court emphasized limited scope of judicial review over Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction – Grounds of detention precise, relevant, and justified – Court does not substitute its opinion for that of the Detaining Authority [Para 11].

Non-Application of Mind – Allegation of non-application of mind by Detaining Authority due to reference to bail status dismissed – Detailed examination of bail and criminal records confirmed proper application of mind – High Court and Detaining Authority’s findings upheld [Paras 14-16].

Delay in Representation – Argument of procedural delay in considering detenu's representation rejected – Detenu’s representation considered and rejected by both Government and Advisory Board in a timely manner [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upholding detention order affirmed – No costs awarded.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Development Agreement between parties included an arbitration clause – Dispute arose, Respondent invoked arbitration and nominated an arbitrator – Petitioner refused to appoint its arbitrator claiming no arbitral dispute – Designate Judge appointed an arbitrator on behalf of Petitioner under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Supreme Court upheld Designate Judge's decision, stating Petitioner’s right to appoint arbitrator extinguished upon its refusal [Paras 1-40].

Judicial Interpretation – Arbitration Clause – Court reiterated that failure to appoint an arbitrator within stipulated time extinguishes party’s right to do so – Designate Judge correctly exercised power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – No merit in Petitioner’s argument for opportunity to nominate its arbitrator after initial refusal [Paras 16-19, 39].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s plea for substituting appointed arbitrator with a retired High Court Judge – Held that Designate Judge’s appointment of a senior advocate as arbitrator was appropriate and within legal provisions [Paras 20-25].

Precedent Application – Reference to precedents Union of India v. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. and National Highways Authority of India v. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV) – Clarified non-applicability of latter case to present circumstances, focusing on specific context of arbitrator appointment [Paras 12-13, 39].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Appointment of arbitrator by Designate Judge upheld – Costs of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by Petitioner to be paid to Respondent [Paras 19, 40].

Criminal Procedure – Committal Proceedings – Question of non-compliance with Section 193 of CrPC where a Special Judge directly took cognizance without committal – Earlier decisions (Gangula Ashok, Moly, Vidyadharan) held such trials invalid without committal – Conflict with Bhooraji’s decision which upheld trial’s validity despite procedural lapses if no failure of justice occurred – Supreme Court upheld Bhooraji, emphasizing substance over form in criminal justice [Paras 1-53].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act – Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session – It can take cognizance only when the case is committed by a Magistrate – Direct cognizance by Special Court without committal is a procedural lapse, not affecting competence to try unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown [Paras 5-9, 29-52].

Failure of Justice – Evaluation – Error in committal procedure does not per se vitiate trial – Accused must show specific prejudice or failure of justice – Court to consider facts, procedural safeguards, and fairness of trial – Mere procedural irregularity without resulting prejudice does not warrant retrial or setting aside conviction [Paras 30-37, 41-52].

Decision: Bhooraji’s principle affirmed – Moly and Vidyadharan overruled to the extent they mandated retrial or quashing of convictions solely based on non-committal – Appeals to be decided on merits without remanding for retrial [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Procedure – Committal Proceedings – Question of non-compliance with Section 193 of CrPC where a Special Judge directly took cognizance without committal – Earlier decisions (Gangula Ashok, Moly, Vidyadharan) held such trials invalid without committal – Conflict with Bhooraji’s decision which upheld trial’s validity despite procedural lapses if no failure of justice occurred – Supreme Court upheld Bhooraji, emphasizing substance over form in criminal justice [Paras 1-53].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act – Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session – It can take cognizance only when the case is committed by a Magistrate – Direct cognizance by Special Court without committal is a procedural lapse, not affecting competence to try unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown [Paras 5-9, 29-52].

Failure of Justice – Evaluation – Error in committal procedure does not per se vitiate trial – Accused must show specific prejudice or failure of justice – Court to consider facts, procedural safeguards, and fairness of trial – Mere procedural irregularity without resulting prejudice does not warrant retrial or setting aside conviction [Paras 30-37, 41-52].

Decision: Bhooraji’s principle affirmed – Moly and Vidyadharan overruled to the extent they mandated retrial or quashing of convictions solely based on non-committal – Appeals to be decided on merits without remanding for retrial [Paras 52-53].

Income Tax – Bad Debts – Deductions – Banks are entitled to claim deductions for bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) independently of the provisions for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) – Full Bench of Kerala High Court’s contrary view overruled – Supreme Court held that the two provisions are distinct and independent – The proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) limits the deduction for bad debts only to the extent of the amount exceeding the provision made under Section 36(1)(viia) [Paras 1-42].

Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes – Strict Construction – Provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) should be construed strictly – These sections operate in different fields and should not be intermingled – Legislative intent is clear in providing separate deductions for actual write-offs and provisions for bad and doubtful debts [Paras 14-25].

Effect of Circulars – Binding Nature – Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on the Income Tax authorities – Circulars clarifying the deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) support the interpretation that these provisions are distinct – CBDT Circular No. 258 and Circular No. 464 emphasize the separate nature of these deductions and prevent double benefits [Paras 18-23].

Judicial Precedents – Special Bench of ITAT and High Court Decisions – Special Bench of ITAT and earlier Division Bench of Kerala High Court correctly interpreted the provisions, holding that banks are entitled to both deductions without restrictions imposed by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) – Supreme Court upheld these interpretations, emphasizing the need to follow legislative intent and established accounting standards [Paras 26-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment reversed – Cases remanded to the assessing officer for recomputation of deductions in accordance with this judgment – No costs awarded [Paras 42-45].

Election Law – Nomination Paper – Validity – Respondent’s nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer due to the deletion of the name of one proposer from the electoral roll – Respondent challenged the election of the Appellant on the ground of improper rejection of his nomination – Appellant filed applications for dismissal of the Election Petition on grounds of non-compliance with Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and non-disclosure of cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC – Applications dismissed by the Election Tribunal [Paras 1-12].

Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal – Scope – Election Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not confined to the grounds on which the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper – Tribunal can consider any other relevant ground or fresh material – Supreme Court upheld Tribunal’s decision to hear the Election Petition on merits, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the allegations through evidence [Paras 13-16].

Rejection of Applications – Consideration of Evidence – Key question is whether the proposer was eligible to subscribe to the nomination paper – This issue to be determined based on evidence – Supreme Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the Appellant’s applications, stating that the Election Petition must be decided on merits [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Election Petition to be decided on merits by the Election Tribunal – No costs awarded [Paras 18-19].