Binding precedent barred later SLP; pending review proceedings and issued notice did not justify interference.

A subsequent Special Leave Petition was not entertained because the controversy was already covered by an earlier binding judgment. The pendency of review proceedings, or the fact that notice had been issued in connected matters, did not justify interference in light of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The text also notes that related review petitions had been dismissed both for delay and on merits. The operative effect was dismissal of the later petition in deference to the prior decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petition was liable to be entertained when the controversy stood covered by an earlier binding judgment of the Court, and whether the pendency or issuance of notice in connected review matters warranted interference.

Analysis: The petition was found to be covered by the earlier decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited, and the Court noted that the pendency of review proceedings or the fact that notice had been issued in similar matters did not furnish a basis to entertain a subsequent matter in view of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also noted the dismissal of connected review petitions on delay as well as on merits.

Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was not entertained and was dismissed on merits following the earlier judgment/order.

---