Civil Law - Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – Order 37 CPC – Leave Granted – Respondent filed a summary suit under Order 37 CPC based on a document termed as an indemnity/guarantee signed by the appellant bank's manager – Trial Court and High Court denied leave to defend, holding the defence as sham – Supreme Court held that triable issues existed regarding the nature of the document and allegations of fraud – Held: Leave to defend ought to have been granted as serious disputed questions of fact and law arose, including whether the document was a guarantee or indemnity [Paras 6–13, 16].

Bank Liability – Nature of Document – Indemnity vs. Guarantee – Triable Issue – Document signed by the bank manager merely affixed a stamp below a clause referring to joint liability – Appellant argued the document was not recorded officially and was executed beyond the manager's authority – Supreme Court observed that whether the document created a guarantee or indemnity required examination – Held: Summary procedure under Order 37 CPC not applicable to indemnity bonds; thus, leave to defend was wrongly denied [Paras 12–14].

Indemnity Bond – Not Covered Under Order 37 CPC – Proof of Loss Essential – Court clarified that while claims on guarantees may fall within Order 37 CPC, indemnity bonds do not – Indemnity entails proving actual loss before enforcement – Held: Even if document is construed as a guarantee, it is not unconditional; hence, claim does not qualify for summary procedure [Paras 14–15].

Fraud Alleged – Defence Not Sham – Summary Rejection Improper – Appellant alleged collusion between its former manager and the second respondent, and that the document was fraudulent and outside banking procedures – No denial of these averments by the respondent – Held: Allegations of fraud constitute valid triable issue, justifying grant of leave to defend [Paras 7, 13].

Precedents Distinguished – No Unconditional Bank Guarantee Involved – Respondent relied on ONGC v. SBI regarding unconditional bank guarantees – Supreme Court distinguished that case, holding the present document was neither unconditional nor clearly a bank guarantee – Held: ONGC ruling not applicable to present facts [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Leave to Defend Granted – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, and granted leave to defend to the appellant bank – Directed filing of written statement and expedited trial proceedings – Clarified that observations are prima facie and do not affect merits of the case [Paras 16–18].

Constitutional Law - Minority Rights – Scope of Article 30(1) – Clarification Sought – Eleven-Judge Bench Formulated Questions – The Full Bench was constituted to reconsider and clarify issues arising out of earlier rulings in St. Stephen’s College and Unni Krishnan cases – The Bench framed eleven comprehensive questions involving the definition of minorities, the scope of educational rights under Article 30(1), and the regulatory powers of the State – Held: Questions reformulated to cover the meaning of minority, extent of administrative autonomy of minority institutions, and reconciliation of minority rights with regulatory mechanisms [Para 1].

Religious and Linguistic Minorities – Identification and Rights – Article 30(1) – Rights Not Absolute – Questions were raised whether the mere establishment or administration by members of a minority group qualifies an institution for minority status – Further, whether such status entitles it to autonomy in admissions, staff appointments, and fee structures – Held: Minority rights are subject to reasonable regulation to maintain academic standards and fairness in access to education [Para 1].

Professional Education – Minority Institutions – Regulatory Oversight – Full Bench sought to determine whether professional education (such as medical and engineering) could be claimed exclusively under Article 30(1) and to what extent State regulation of admissions and fees is permissible – Held: Answer deferred pending detailed adjudication, but reformulated questions indicate the State's regulatory interest remains significant [Para 1].

Right of Admission – State Aid and Autonomy – Distinction Between Aided and Unaided Institutions – Key issue framed was whether receiving State aid limits the autonomy of minority institutions in admissions and administrative policies – Held: Receipt of aid may attract regulatory conditions, particularly regarding non-discrimination and fairness in public interest [Para 1].

Cross-State Minority Claims – Applicability of Minority Status Across States – Issues raised about whether a linguistic or religious group that is a majority in one State can claim minority rights in another State – Held: Referred for adjudication, but prima facie indicates the territorial and contextual nature of minority status under the Indian Constitution [Para 1].

Precedents Reconsidered – Validity of St. Stephen’s and Unni Krishnan Judgments Questioned – Court indicated that the principles laid down in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi and Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. need reconsideration, particularly in the context of admissions, reservations, and State regulation – Held: Decision on whether these cases were correctly decided deferred to final ruling [Para 1].

Decision – Order Passed for Reframing of Questions – No Final Determination Yet – The Court reframed the key constitutional questions for broader consideration and reserved final judgment – Held: Proceedings to continue based on reframed questions covering minority identity, institutional autonomy, and State regulatory powers [Para 1].

Criminal Law – Duty of Appellate Court – Sections 325, 326, 34 IPC – Appeal Allowed; Remand Ordered – Appellants convicted under Sections 326, 325 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court dismissed their criminal appeal with a brief order stating that there was no error in trial court findings, without discussing prosecution or defence evidence – Held: In a criminal appeal, the appellate court is duty-bound to independently reappraise the evidence and cannot dispose of the matter merely by affirming the trial court’s view – Such disposal denies accused their valuable right of appeal – Impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law [Paras 3-5].

Right of Appeal – Valuable Safeguard – Appellate scrutiny ensures fairness in conviction and sentencing – A cryptic order without examining evidence amounts to miscarriage of justice and is “unknown to law” [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court to hear and decide appeal afresh after proper appraisal of evidence and hearing parties [Para 5].

Constitution Bench reference - Binding Precedent – Larger Bench vs Smaller Bench – Article 141 – Two-Judge Bench cannot take a view contrary to a prior Three-Judge Bench – The Court traced earlier PMS doctors’ litigation: Allahabad High Court and a Three-Judge Bench (24.11.1992) upheld counting seniority of temporary doctors from initial appointment – Later Two-Judge Bench orders (23.03.1995; 26.07.1996) holding seniority only from regularisation under Rule 7 directly conflicted – Held: Pronouncement of law by a Bench of larger strength binds a Bench of lesser strength; smaller Bench cannot overrule/differ; proper course is reference to larger Bench – The Two-Judge orders do not lay down the correct law [Paras 16-18, 20-23, 24].

Regularisation Rules, 1979 – Rule 7 – Inapplicability when contrary to Larger Bench Law – Three-Judge Bench approval of High Court view allowing seniority from initial appointment stood as binding declaration – Two-Judge reliance on Rule 7 to restrict seniority to date of regularisation held impermissible being contrary to binding precedent [Paras 16-18, 24].

Judicial Discipline – Reference Procedure – Bench Strength Hierarchy – For disagreement with a coordinate/larger Bench, the matter must be referred to an appropriate larger Bench; ensures certainty and consistency in law [Paras 20-23].

Scope of Present Decision – Merits Not Decided – Court confined to resolving conflict and effect thereof; inter se rights of parties and correctness of Dr. Mathur left open for decision by a Three-Judge Bench hearing the writs; intervention applications also left to that Bench [Paras 13, 25].

Decision – Two-Judge Bench orders dated 23.03.1995 & 26.07.1996 declared not reflecting the correct law, being in conflict with Three-Judge Bench judgment dated 24.11.1992 – Writ petitions to be listed before a Bench of three learned Judges for final disposal [Paras 24, 26].

Article 30(1) – Minority Educational Institutions – Reference to Larger Bench – Eleven-Judge Bench – Questions Reframed – The Court, after hearing parties, reformulated comprehensive questions on (i) who are “minorities” and the unit for determination, (ii) scope of the right to establish and administer, including admissions/selection procedures in aided and unaided institutions, (iii) territorial location and whether preferences can be extended across States, (iv) whether non-minorities in one State can set up in another State and claim minority status, (v) indicia to identify minority institutions, (vi) whether establishment or administration alone suffices, (vii) extent of State/University regulation of admissions, (viii) correctness of St. Stephen’s ratio, (ix) meaning of “religion” for Article 30(1) including sect/denomination claims, and (x) reconsideration/modification of Unni Krishnan (save primary education as fundamental right) – Prior precedents flagged for reconsideration – No final pronouncement on merits at this stage; matters to be heard and decided on the reframed questions – Decision: Reference questions settled; merits reserved [Order framing issues].

Minority Status – Unit of Determination – Inter-State Operation – Questions set for decision on whether minority status is State-specific; if institutions founded in State ‘A’ can extend preferences to co-religionists/linguistic groups from other States where they are non-minorities – Outcome: Issues reserved for authoritative ruling [Order framing issues].

Admissions & Regulation – Aided vs Unaided – Whether right to lay down admission procedure is part of administration under Article 30(1) and the effect of State aid – Whether State/University can regulate admissions in minority institutions – Outcome: Issues flagged; to be decided by the Bench [Order framing issues].

Precedents – St. Stephen’s & Unni Krishnan – Correctness Questioned – Court expressly put in issue the continuing validity of St. Stephen’s (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993) scheme (except recognition of primary education as a fundamental right) – Outcome: To be reconsidered in the reference [Order framing issues].

Establishment vs Administration – Indicia – Whether minority character is derived from founder’s identity or from administration; tests/indicia to treat an institution as “minority educational institution” – Outcome: Questions posed for determination [Order framing issues].

Decision – Reference – Eleven-Judge Bench reframed and consolidated the questions for final adjudication on the ambit of Article 30(1) and related regulatory issues – No final relief granted on merits; adjudication to follow on the settled questions.

Acquisition Law - BDA Acquisition – Applicability of L.A. Act Section 11A/Section 6 – Not Applicable – The appellant sought to quash BDA acquisition contending that the award passed beyond Section 11A’s period caused lapse – Held: BDA Act is a special, self-contained code for planned development (List II Entry 5); it provides its own scheme for declaration (Section 19), execution and lapsing (Section 27) – By necessary implication, L.A. Act Sections 6 and 11A do not apply to BDA acquisitions; lapsing is only per Section 27 when scheme not substantially executed within 5 years of Section 19(1) declaration [Paras 10-11, 15].

Legislation by Incorporation/Reference – BDA Act vs L.A. Act – Not Supplemental/pari materia – Section 36 BDA does not bind to future L.A. amendments – Unlike Karnataka House Sites Act (considered in Mariyappa), the BDA Act is complete as to acquisition for its purposes; amendments like Section 11A cannot be imported absent express intendment; U.P. Avas distinguished; Narasimhan principles applied [Paras 12-15].

Compensation & Procedure Under Improvement Acts – “So far as applicable” – Prior rulings (Narayanaiah; P. Govindan; Farid Ahmed) affirmed that general L.A. principles (e.g., compensation determination) apply unless excluded by special procedure; however, limitation provisions of Sections 6/11A are excluded for BDA by necessary implication [Paras 8-11].

Delay/Laches – Owner’s Conduct – Appellant’s own litigation and interim orders impeded timely progress; cannot found a plea of lapse or inequity – No merit [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court view following Khoday Distilleries approved; acquisition sustained; no costs [Paras 11, 17].

Criminal Law  – TADA Confession, Conspiracy & Death Penalty – Sections 15 TADA, 120B IPC, Articles 72/161, CrPC Sections 432–433A – Majority (Pasayat, Agrawal, JJ.) upheld conviction based on a voluntary Section 15 confession of the maker without need of corroboration, affirmed findings on conspiracy and confirmed death sentence applying the ‘rarest of rare’ test; noted availability of constitutional/executive clemency – Dissent (Shah, J.) held the confession unsafe as sole basis due to procedural lapses and lack of independent corroboration; would acquit – Outcome: Appeal dismissed; death reference confirmed [Paras 1, 4–10, 12–33, 34–36; dissent Paras 37–63].

TADA – Nature of “Terrorism” – Sections 2, 3 – Intention to overawe Government/strike terror; beyond ordinary law-enforcement capacity – Comparative/UN definitional discussion – Application context-specific [Paras 1–3].

Confession under TADA – Section 15 vs. Evidence Act – Admissibility and Voluntariness – Confession to police officer (not below SP) is substantive evidence if voluntary – Prosecution must prove safeguards; once voluntariness established, no corroboration needed to convict the maker; prudence for co-accused remains [Paras 4–6].

Retraction & Procedural Objections – Delay in retraction as afterthought – Computer-typed confession and typed certificate; non-dispatch to ACMM – Held directory irregularities causing no prejudice; forwarding to Designated Court is the mandatory core – Presumption of regularity under Section 114 Evidence Act applies [Paras 7–10].

Criminal Conspiracy – IPC Sections 120A/120B – Essence is agreement/meeting of minds; overt act not necessary for serious offence – Proof can rest on circumstantial evidence; secrecy recognised – Principles from Halsbury, Russell, Glanville Williams endorsed [Paras 12–23].

Use of Confession – Scope & Corroboration – Confession of accused alone can sustain his conviction if voluntary and truthful; corroboration advisable for co-accused; acquittal of co-accused does not ipso facto exculpate maker [Paras 24–29].

Sentence – Death Penalty – ‘Rarest of rare’ – Bachan Singh/Machhi Singh applied – Multiple deaths, diabolic execution, societal shock – Death sentence affirmed [Paras 30–32].

Clemency – Articles 72 & 161; CrPC 432–433A – Constitutional clemency powers are distinct and unfettered by statutory remission constraints; observations in Ram Deo Chauhan reiterated [Para 33].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence confirmed; death reference answered accordingly – Dissent would acquit and set aside conviction [Paras 34–36; dissent Paras 37–63].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Sections 302/149 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Trial court acquitted the accused invoking right of private defence under Section 100 IPC – High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused after finding their claim of self-defence unsustainable – Supreme Court held the High Court rightly reappreciated the evidence and found that the trial court had ignored material and admissible evidence – Held: High Court’s conviction of the accused under Sections 302/149 IPC was justified [Paras 1, 4–7, 14].

Right of Private Defence – Claim Rejected – Sections 96 and 100 IPC – Accused Found to Be Aggressors – Trial court’s finding that injuries on accused entitled them to private defence was rejected – High Court found injuries minor and sequence of assault indicated that the accused were aggressors – Held: Right of private defence cannot be claimed by aggressors – No fault in High Court’s interference with acquittal on this ground [Paras 4–6].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Powers of High Court – Section 378 CrPC – Interference Permissible – High Court has full power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal – Supreme Court held that where trial court ignores admissible evidence or draws conclusions based on extraneous considerations, High Court is duty-bound to interfere – Held: Interference by High Court in acquittal appeal was valid and justified [Para 7].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Existence Proven – Appellants contended that each accused acted individually – Supreme Court held that common object does not require prior meeting of minds – Accused armed with deadly weapons, shared animosity, and coordinated attack demonstrated common object – Held: Conviction under Section 149 IPC was proper [Para 9].

FIR and Eyewitness Evidence – Non-Mention of Names – Not Fatal – Argument that all accused were not named in FIR was rejected – Names were mentioned in FIR and confirmed by reliable eye-witnesses – Relationship of witnesses with deceased not a valid ground to discard evidence – Held: Testimonies of PWs 7, 12, and 22 credible and trustworthy – Statement of PW7 valid despite absence from FIR [Paras 10–13].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Sustained – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal – Held: Conviction under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC sustained – Appeal dismissed [Para 14].

Motor Vehicles Permits – Liberalised Policy – Section 80 & 80(2) – High Court Orders Set Aside; STAT Orders Restored – Appellants’ mini-bus permits were stalled by relying on a State Scheme ratio and by remitting matters despite Section 80’s mandate – Held: Section 80(2) obliges authorities to “ordinarily” grant permits; attempts to perpetuate “permit-raj” are contrary to the liberalised regime – Appeals Allowed [Paras 2-6, 12].

Section 99 Scheme – Preconditions – Clause 7/7-A Cannot Curtail Permits Absent STU Operation – The State may frame a scheme only where STU will operate services on an area/route, to the exclusion (complete/partial) of others, following prescribed publication and particulars – Clause 7-A neither discloses STU operation nor satisfies Section 99 requirements – Outcome: Clause 7-A not in conformity with Section 99; cannot restrict permits [Paras 6-11].

Ratio 50:50 (STU:Private) – Inapplicability to Village/Feeder Routes – Reading Clause 7 with 7-A to impose a 50:50 cap is misconceived – Without a valid Section 99 scheme earmarking STU operation, no numerical capping or reservation of routes for future STU operation is permissible – Outcome: RTA cannot refuse permits by invoking 50:50 ratio [Paras 7-11].

Due Process for Section 99 Scheme – Mandatory Steps – For any curtailment of private permits the State must: form public-interest satisfaction; specify nature of services, area/route and particulars; publish in Official Gazette and regional press – Non-compliance vitiates reliance on the scheme – Outcome: No lawful bar to grant of appellants’ permits [Paras 9-10].

Precedent Applied – Jagdip Singh v. Jagir Chand – Governing Law Reaffirmed – Supreme Court’s earlier ruling squarely covers the controversy; liberalised permitting under Section 80 prevails absent a valid Section 99 scheme – Outcome: Appeals allowed following Jagdip Singh [Paras 2, 5, 8-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court judgments set aside – STAT orders in favour of appellants restored – No order as to costs [Para 12].