Civic Amenity Site - Conversion and Use - Statutory Interpretation - The Appellants challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which set aside the allotment of Civic Amenity (CA) Site No. 2 for a petrol pump. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interpreted Section 38A of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act, 1976, which mandates that once an area is reserved for a particular civic amenity, it cannot be diverted to another use. The conversion of the site originally earmarked for a park/playground, then bank, and finally a petrol pump was found to be contrary to the legislative intent and statutory provisions. [Paras 1-17]

Civic Amenity - Definition and Legal Constraints - The Supreme Court reaffirmed that any change in the user of a civic amenity site must adhere to the statutory provisions and the intended purpose for which the site was reserved. The Court noted that Section 38A(1) allows transfer only for the same reserved purpose, and any disposition for a different purpose is null and void under Section 38A(2). The High Court's interpretation was consistent with the law laid down in earlier cases, including Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa. [Paras 12-14]

Rule vs. Statute - Hierarchical Supremacy - The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 3 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Civic Amenity Site) Allotment Rules, 1989, cannot override the statutory provisions contained in Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976. The rule reiterates the statutory provision and does not permit the conversion of civic amenity sites to other uses without proper amendment to the development plan. [Para 14]

Judicial Precedent - Applicability - The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Aicoboo Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Bangalore Development Authority, noting that the previous case dealt with the legality of allotment of a civic amenity site without specific reserved purpose. The present case involved a site specifically earmarked for a bank, which was improperly converted to a petrol pump. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Karnataka High Court's decision to set aside the allotment of the CA Site No. 2 for a petrol pump, affirming that the conversion was contrary to the statutory requirements and legislative intent. [Para 19]

Judicial Review - Tender Process - Scope and Limits - The Appellants challenged the decision of the Gauhati High Court that upheld the cancellation of a tender process by the Northeast Frontier Railway. The Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to the award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is limited. It is well-settled that submission of a tender is merely making an offer, and the State is under no obligation to accept it. The State's decision must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, but the State has the discretion to cancel the tender process if it finds deficiencies. [Paras 8-11]

Tender Cancellation - Administrative Reasons - Validity - The Supreme Court examined the reasons provided by the Northeast Frontier Railway for canceling the tender process, including the lack of terms and conditions, absence of a penalty clause, and procedural deficiencies. The Court found these reasons justified the cancellation, noting that awarding a contract under such conditions would result in administrative and legal complications. [Paras 7-8]

Contract Award - No Vested Right for Highest Bidder - The Supreme Court reiterated that the highest bidder does not have a vested right to be awarded the contract. The discretion lies with the tendering authority to ensure that the tender process and the award of the contract are in the best interest of public administration and financial prudence. [Para 9]

Judicial Precedent - Applicability in Tender Matters - The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, to affirm the principles governing judicial review of tender processes. The Court emphasized that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, malafide, or violation of statutory provisions. [Paras 10-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Gauhati High Court. The cancellation of the tender process by the Northeast Frontier Railway was upheld, and the Appellants were ordered to bear the costs assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. [Para 12]

Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Composite Suit - The Appellants challenged the judgment of the Kerala High Court which dealt with the maintainability of a composite suit filed at the District Court, Kottayam, involving claims under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. The Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not be maintainable unless the court has jurisdiction over the entire cause of action and relief. [Paras 9-10]

Copyright Act - Jurisdiction - Additional Forum - The Supreme Court examined Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides an additional forum for filing suits where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. The Court noted that this provision is intended to confer a benefit on plaintiffs who might face difficulty initiating proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. However, this does not extend to claims under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. [Paras 14-15]

Trade Marks Act 1999 - Applicability - The Court discussed the applicability of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, which similarly allows suits to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. Since the Trade Marks Act 1999 came into force after the suit was filed, the provisions of the 1958 Act governed the case. The Court held that the jurisdiction under the 1958 Act cannot be extended by the provisions of the 1999 Act. [Paras 21-22]

Judicial Precedent - Consistency and Clarification - The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, and Dabur India Ltd. v. K.R. Industries, clarifying that for invoking jurisdiction in a composite suit, both causes of action must arise within the court's jurisdiction. The Court found no conflict between these decisions and reiterated that a composite suit is maintainable only when the court has jurisdiction over all claims. [Paras 16-19]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed with Liberty to Amend - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint to make the suit maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam. The Court emphasized that the High Court exercised its discretionary powers correctly to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 22-23]

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Full and Final Settlement Dispute - The Appellant challenged the High Court's order appointing an arbitrator, arguing that a full and final settlement precluded arbitration. The Supreme Court held that whether the letter dated 6-6-2003 constituted a full and final settlement is a matter for the arbitrator to decide based on evidence. The dispute over the finality of settlement is arbitrable. [Paras 15-17]

Arbitration Clause - Interpretation and Application - The agreement between the parties included an arbitration clause for settling disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed that the arbitration clause remains operative despite the Appellant's claim of a full and final settlement. The Court emphasized that a mere assertion of settlement by one party does not negate the arbitration clause unless the settlement is mutually accepted as final. [Para 17]

Scope of Judicial Intervention - Arbitration Proceedings - The Court reiterated that judicial intervention in arbitration matters should be minimal, supporting the High Court's decision to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator has the jurisdiction to determine the validity and finality of the alleged settlement. [Para 15]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Arbitration to Proceed - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court directed the arbitrator to conclude the proceedings expeditiously in the interest of justice. [Paras 18-19]

Service Law - Transfer and Continuity of Service Conditions - The Appellant, transferred from CBI to NCRB, challenged the reduction in his pay-scale. The Supreme Court held that upon transfer, the Appellant continued to be governed by the CBI service rules until new rules were framed for NCRB. His pay and service conditions should have been protected, and any reduction was in violation of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution. [Paras 8-9, 13]

Equal Treatment - Discrimination Against Transferred Employees - The Supreme Court noted that the Appellant was not given the option to choose his transfer and was unfairly treated compared to his batch mates who remained in CBI. This amounted to discrimination. The Court emphasized that an employee transferred in public interest should not face adverse effects on pay, allowances, and promotion prospects. [Paras 8-9, 13]

Legal Precedents - Applicability and Interpretation - The Supreme Court referred to its previous rulings in K. Madhavan v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, reiterating that transfer implies continuity of service conditions and protection of existing benefits unless new rules are framed. [Paras 10-11]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Restoration of Pay and Benefits - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Court directed that the Appellant's pay be corrected to align with his original service conditions in CBI, and that his pension and other benefits be recalculated accordingly. The Respondents were instructed to clear arrears within three months. [Paras 14-15]

Land Acquisition - Section 5A - Scope and Application - The Appellants challenged the acquisition of their land on the grounds of non-application of mind by the Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government to their objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court held that effective hearing and genuine consideration of objections under Section 5A are essential safeguards. The Court found that the Land Acquisition Collector's report was cursory and did not reflect objective consideration, and the State Government's approval was mechanical. [Paras 15-23]

Judicial Review - Procedural Safeguards - Compliance - The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with Section 5A, which embodies the rule of audi alteram partem, is mandatory. The Land Acquisition Collector must provide a fair opportunity of hearing and make a reasoned report, which the appropriate Government must consider before issuing a declaration under Section 6. Non-compliance with these procedural safeguards vitiates the acquisition process. [Paras 18-22]

Report of Land Acquisition Collector - Legal Requirements - The Supreme Court scrutinized the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector and found it lacking in detailed consideration of objections and reasons. The report merely summarized the objections and recommended acquisition without addressing the specific points raised by the Appellants. Such a report does not meet the legal requirements under Section 5A(2). [Paras 16-17]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Acquisition Proceedings Set Aside - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court, and quashed the acquisition proceedings for failing to comply with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court granted time to the management of the school currently occupying the land to vacate and requested the State Government to consider allotting an alternative site. [Paras 24-29]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The Appellant challenged the order of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal directing reinstatement of the Respondent after his acquittal in a criminal case. The Supreme Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle reinstatement in service if the charges in disciplinary proceedings are substantiated. The Court emphasized the distinction between criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings, noting that the standards of proof differ. [Paras 14-16]

Honourable Acquittal - Meaning and Scope - The Supreme Court clarified that an honourable acquittal is different from an acquittal based on benefit of doubt. In this case, the Respondent was acquitted due to the inability to establish identity during the Test Identification Parade (TI Parade), not because he was proven innocent beyond doubt. Therefore, the acquittal was not considered honourable, and the disciplinary action was upheld. [Paras 13-14]

Police Regulations - Effect of Acquittal on Departmental Punishment - The Supreme Court referred to Regulation 4 of the Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968, which states that acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding shall not bar departmental punishment for the same cause. This regulation supports the continuation of disciplinary action despite the acquittal in criminal proceedings. [Para 17]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Reinstatement Not Automatic - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court held that reinstatement is not automatic upon acquittal in a criminal case and must be considered in light of the findings of disciplinary proceedings. The Respondent's dismissal from service was upheld. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Compounding of Offences - Scope and Limits - The Appellant challenged the High Court’s order acquitting the Respondents by accepting a compromise in a case involving non-compoundable offences under Section 307 IPC. The Supreme Court held that Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, and the High Court erred in acquitting the Respondents based on a compromise between the parties. The Court emphasized that offences under Section 307 IPC are crimes against society, not just individuals, and cannot be compounded. [Paras 8-12, 14]

Judicial Review - High Court's Powers under Section 482 CrPC - The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on a compromise is distinct from compounding offences under Section 320 CrPC. The inherent power of the High Court must be exercised with due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its impact on society. The High Court's decision was found to be an erroneous exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC. [Paras 8-9, 14-15]

Nature of Offences - Public Interest and Societal Impact - The Court reiterated that serious offences, especially those under Section 307 IPC, affect the societal order and public interest. Such offences cannot be settled privately between the parties, as they have broader implications for society. The Court highlighted the necessity of upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system by ensuring that serious crimes are appropriately punished. [Paras 10, 15]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court’s Order Set Aside - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The case was remanded to the High Court with directions to decide the appeal on merits within six months. The Court stressed the importance of addressing the merits of the case rather than relying on a compromise for offences that are non-compoundable by law. [Paras 16]

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Standards of Proof - The Appellants challenged the affirmation of their death sentence and convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused, excluding any hypothesis of innocence. The facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. [Paras 6-7]

Discrepancies in Evidence - Assessment - The Appellants contended discrepancies in witness testimonies. The Supreme Court reiterated that minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case should not lead to outright rejection of evidence. The evidence must be read in totality to assess its reliability. [Paras 8-9]

Independent Witnesses - Recovery Witnesses - The Appellants argued that only police personnel were made recovery witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that while independent witnesses are preferred, the evidence of police personnel can be accepted if it inspires confidence and corroborates other evidence. The absence of independent witnesses is not fatal if the evidence is otherwise reliable. [Paras 10-11]

Last Seen Theory - Burden of Explanation - The Supreme Court emphasized that when the accused were last seen with the deceased, it becomes their duty to explain the circumstances under which the death occurred. Failure to provide a plausible explanation can reinforce the prosecution's case. [Paras 15-16]

Death Sentence - 'Rarest of Rare' Doctrine - The Court reviewed the application of the death penalty, affirming that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases where the crime is extremely brutal, diabolical, and shocks the collective conscience of society. The facts of this case did not meet this threshold. [Paras 18-20]

Decision - Appeals Partly Allowed - Death Sentence Commuted - The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission. The Court emphasized the need for proportionality and the consideration of mitigating factors alongside the gravity of the crime. [Paras 20-21]