Jurisdictional Authority over Bus Shelters – Supreme Court confirms Chennai Municipal Corporation's exclusive authority under Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 to manage and control bus shelters, rejecting Metropolitan Transport Corporation’s claimed authority based on State Government notification – MTCL’s agreement with private firms annulled due to lack of statutory backing. [Paras 1-58]

Settlement and Legal Binding – Court invalidates settlement between MTCL and private firms entered post-High Court judgment, emphasizing lack of legal authority and deliberate circumvention of judicial findings – Directs immediate takeover of bus shelters by Chennai Municipal Corporation. [Paras 47-55]

Public Interest and Legal Compliance – Emphasizes on compliance with statutory provisions for tender processes by public bodies to ensure transparency and fairness – Urges Chennai Municipal Corporation to adopt vigilant and proactive measures in safeguarding public interest. [Paras 52-57]

Contempt of Court – Incident involving physical and verbal misconduct between two advocates during proceedings in the Delhi High Court – Appellant admitted to misconduct when confronted by the High Court, resulting in a contempt conviction and sanctions including imprisonment, debarment from court appearances, and pro bono legal work. [Paras 1-3]

Conduct Examined – Appellant's conduct deemed to interfere with judicial procedure and to obstruct administration of justice, characterized as habitual use of brute force. Conviction based on direct interference in court proceedings and lack of remorse initially shown by the appellant. [Paras 4-5]

Appeal Arguments – Appellant argued that the incident did not constitute contempt as it did not occur directly in front of a judge and was a spontaneous action without willful intent. Further claimed procedural irregularities, including lack of a proper show-cause notice and inability to present his side effectively. [Paras 6-8]

Court's Assessment – High Court found no merit in appellant's recall application; Supreme Court noted the appellant's changing stance and lack of sincere apology, affirming the need for maintaining judicial dignity and lawyer's professional standards. Emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct among lawyers and consequences of deviation. [Paras 9-16]

Apology and Reconciliation Efforts – Appellant's later apologies, both to the court and the involved parties, deemed insincere and tactical rather than genuine remorse. Court underscores that apologies must be prompt and sincere to be considered in contempt proceedings. [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court's conviction, and sanctions, but sets aside directive for Bar Council review due to the completion of imposed sanctions and the detailed court review of the appellant's conduct. [Paras 19-22]

Constitutional Law - Fairness in Investigation - Importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation in criminal cases to uphold justice - Discussion on the necessity of an independent investigation agency, such as the CBI, in cases where local police investigation may not inspire confidence due to potential biases or improper conduct - [Paras 3, 5, 7, 13, 30].

Criminal Law - Alleged Suicide Investigation - Controversy regarding the investigation of a student's death following a fall from her college hostel - Allegations of ragging and subsequent mishandling of the situation by college authorities and local police - Judicial scrutiny of police investigation impartiality and procedural integrity - [Paras 6, 8, 14, 29].

Judicial Review - Power of Supreme Court - Exercise of power under Article 32 for transfer of investigation to CBI highlighted by the dissenting opinion of Justice T.S. Thakur, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in ensuring justice through credible investigation processes - [Paras 9, 10, 14].

Minority Educational Institutions - Right to Administer - Supreme Court held that Khalsa Girls High School, being a minority institution primarily serving the Punjabi speaking Sikh community, is entitled to the protections of Article 30 of the Constitution, which includes the right to administer the institution and appoint teachers - The institution's rights are not overridden by the application for a special constitution under Rule 8 of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 [Paras 1-21]

State Regulation - Scope and Limitations - The State can impose regulations concerning the qualifications of teachers and the general administration to ensure proper educational standards; however, these must not infringe upon the fundamental right of minority institutions to manage their educational establishments [Paras 22-47]

Decision: The appeals are allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The institution is recognized as a minority educational institution with the right to appoint teachers as per its minority status, thus upholding its administration rights under Article 30 of the Constitution.

Land Revenue - Procedural irregularities in auction - Dispute involves agricultural land measuring 59 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Leacha - Auction conducted for recovery of Rs. 731.70 in arrears; no bidders participated leading to State's purchase for Rs. 1 and subsequent allotment to IOC - Supreme Court finds procedural non-compliance, lack of proper notice and public participation in auction process, violating Article 300A and relevant statutory provisions - Held, original auction and subsequent actions set aside, State directed to restore land to appellants, excluding portion sold to IOC, and compensate appellants for the land acquired by IOC - Emphasizes need for adherence to procedural norms in land auctions to ensure fairness and optimal price recovery [Paras 1-40].

Decision: Appeals allowed - High Court judgment reversed - Board's decision reinstated - State ordered to compensate appellants and restore possession of non-allotted lands.

Appeal to Supreme Court arises from High Court’s setting aside of magistrate’s acquittal of appellant under sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act — High Court remanded for fresh trial without proper consideration of appellant's acquittal and subsequent settlement and mutual divorce of parties — Supreme Court scrutinizes the role and limitation of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of CrPC — Emphasizes prohibition against converting acquittal into conviction and necessity of observing legal restraint unless there is manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice - High Court found improper in re-evaluating evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the trial court — Noted that mutual divorce and settlement should have factored into the decision, which they did not — Acquittal restored as no perversity or legal flaw detected in the trial court's decision. [Paras 2-13]

Decision: The appeal is allowed — High Court’s order set aside, restoring the acquittal of the appellant by the magistrate — Recognizes the finality and comprehensive nature of the mutual divorce and settlement between the parties as overriding continued criminal prosecution post-settlement.

Civil Procedure - Impleading Party - Beneficiary of trust asserting right to be added as party in specific performance suit - Initial permission granted by trial court reversed by High Court - Supreme Court reinstates trial court's decision, highlighting beneficiary's stake in trust property and potential impact on him from property sale [Paras 5-7, 13-15] - Necessary and Proper Party - Trust beneficiary held as proper party in disputes involving property of trust - Relevance of beneficiary's interest in ensuring reasonable exercise of trustees' powers under Trusts Act, especially concerning property alienation [Paras 11, 13-15] - Proper exercise of judicial discretion under CPC, ensuring complete adjudication by including all necessary and proper parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 12-14].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the trial court's order, allowing the appeal and impleading the appellant as a party defendant in the suit, emphasizing the importance of including a beneficiary of trust property in relevant legal proceedings [Para 16]. No order as to costs.

Securities Law - Delisting of shares - Appeal against SAT's decision favoring delisting despite public shareholding falling below specified level - BSE declined delisting because combined holding with promoters did not exceed 90%, keeping public shareholding above 10% required threshold - SAT reversed BSE's decision, citing company's failure to maintain 25% public holding necessary for continuous listing under Rule 19(2)(b) - Supreme Court upheld SAT's decision, affirming that Hella India's public shareholding falling to 18.63% breached the 20% requirement agreed with BSE, thus justifying delisting - Reiterated importance of specific contractual and regulatory conditions outlined in listing agreements for delisting procedures - [Paras 1-20]

Misconduct in Banking Sector – Dismissal for Currency Mismanagement – Review of departmental inquiry upholding dismissal of Respondent for cash shortage and procedural non-compliance during his tenure as Permanent Cash Officer, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri branch - Disciplinary action under Rules 41(i) and 49(h) of the SBI Service Rules - High Court's overturning of dismissal based on re-appreciation of evidence termed excessive under Article 226 - Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment, reinstating dismissal. [Paras 2-13]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – High Court exceeded its remit under Article 226 by substituting its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority and inquiry officer - Appropriate standard in disciplinary inquiries is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt - Supreme Court reiterates limited scope of interference in findings of domestic inquiries unless evidentially perverse or procedurally improper. [Paras 7, 9, 12-13]

Decision: Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the writ petition of the Respondent - Respondent's dismissal from service reinstated - Directed Appellant to pay an ad hoc sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Respondent considering the circumstances. [Para 13]