Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 101

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.ravichander, Adv. Mr. P Dinesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sivagnanam K,, Adv. Mr. Nanchil J Deekshith, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gulshan Jahan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Please provide the content of the legal document (to replace {content}) so I can analyze it and extract the key points with proper references (e.g., (!) (!) ).

JUDGMENT

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-

A.	FACTUAL MATRIX
B.	SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT (ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NO. 2)
C.	SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF)
D.	ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
E.	ANALYSIS
	I. General Principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC
	II. Status/Stage of the first suit is immaterial for the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC
	III. The plaints have to be read as a whole to determine the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC for the purpose of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
	IV. Application of the principles in Order II Rule 2 CPC to the institution of a suit for specific performance when the relief of permanent injunction was sought in a previous suit
	V. The “entitlement to” along with the “availability of” the relief as a requisite in determining the applicability of Order II Rule 2
F.	CONCLUSION