Petitioner’s Appointment and Subsequent Cancellation – Petitioner appointed as Patwari following advertisement dated 17.1.2020 – Appointment cancelled due to past criminal convictions revealed during police verification – Petitioner convicted in two cases under IPC sections 147, 149, 447, 323, 325 but given probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. [Para 1-2]

Legal Challenge to Cancellation – Petitioner argued that mere conviction should not be a disqualification for appointment, citing the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 1970 – Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. and Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Para 3]

Respondents’ Defence – Respondents cited circulars by the Department of Personnel, specifying ineligibility for government service for candidates with certain offences – Referenced a similar case (Bhinya Ram Jajra Vs. State of Rajasthan) where the court upheld the employer's right to consider suitability for employment based on government orders/instructions/rules. [Para 4]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – The Court referenced guidelines from Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case regarding the employment of candidates with criminal antecedents – Concluded that the petitioner’s past offences fall within the prohibited categories as per the circulars dated 15.7.2016 and 4.12.2019 – Upheld the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's appointment. [Para 5-7]

Bribery and Misconduct Allegation – Acquittal of Doddi Narasimha Rao, Tap Inspector, Guntur – Accused of demanding a bribe for installing a water tap connection. State alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Key witness, PW1, turned hostile, altering the prosecution’s narrative. [Paras 3, 4, 14-15]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Hostile witness PW1 altered testimony, affecting the credibility of the prosecution’s case. PW2 and PW3’s testimonies, cited as post-trap incident witnesses, did not support the prosecution’s version. Recovery of tainted money from the accused not conclusively linked to bribery demand. [Paras 14-15, 17, 20-21]

Presumption Under Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 20 – Prosecution failed to establish foundational facts necessary to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State emphasized the need for foundational facts for presumption applicability. [Para 21]

Judicial Reasoning and Decision – Appeal dismissed, confirming the acquittal judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent. [Paras 22-23]

Matrimonial Dispute – Maintenance Pendente Lite – Challenge against the order dated April 24, 2022, by the Family Court, Saket, directing appellant to pay ₹30,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and ₹51,000/- as litigation expenses under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Earlier maintenance of ₹21,000/- per month granted under PWDV Act proceedings. [Paras 1-2]

Income and Expenditure Analysis – Appellant's salary of ₹1,04,276/- with in-hand salary of ₹47,784/- considered – Claims of respondent's employment and appellant's family responsibilities, along with loan repayment, examined. [Paras 3, 5]

Maintenance Determination – Judicial Reasoning – High Court observed no substantial change in circumstances justifying increase from ₹21,000/- to ₹30,000/- in maintenance – Considered appellant's liabilities and respondent's educational background and capacity to earn. [Paras 6]

Maintenance Pendente Lite – Revised Order – Maintenance pendente lite set at ₹21,000/- per month, in line with PWDV Act maintenance – Annual increment of ₹1,500/- from January 2024 till disposal of petition – Litigation expenses/arrears as per Family Court's order. [Para 7]

Decision – Modified maintenance pendente lite to ₹21,000/- per month with annual increment – Impugned order partially altered – Appeal disposed of without costs. [Para 7]

Employee Compensation Claim – Dismissal of Claim for Lack of Employer-Employee Relationship – Death of Brij Kishore Gupta @ Brij Kishore Sah while plying vehicle TSR No. DL-lRF-0941 – Claim based on assertion of employment with Respondent No.1, but dismissed due to insufficient evidence establishing an employer-employee relationship. [Paras 1, 9]

Factual Background – Deceased was purportedly the employee of respondent No.1, involved in an accident resulting in his death – Claimants sought compensation under Employee Compensation Act, 1923. [Paras 2-3]

Respondent’s Submission – Respondent No. 1 denied any employment relationship with the deceased, stating the vehicle was driven on a sharing basis – Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) also denied liability for compensation. [Paras 4-5]

Issues Considered – Primary issues included the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No. 1, and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment. [Para 6]

Labour Commissioner's Findings – Both issues regarding the employer-employee relationship and the connection of the accident with employment were answered negatively – Reliance placed on case law to support conclusions. [Paras 7, 13]

High Court’s Analysis – The High Court upheld the Commissioner’s decision on the employer-employee relationship but noted a flaw in the reasoning regarding the applicability of the Employee Compensation Act to cases of murder during employment. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to failure to prove employer-employee relationship – Academic note on the applicability of Employee Compensation Act in cases of murder during employment. [Para 11]

Property and Tenancy Dispute – Eviction and Recovery of Arrears – Appeal challenging judgment of Additional District Judge and Senior Civil Judge for eviction of Rajender Bhardwaj (Appellant) and recovery of arrears and user charges – Dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal by First Appellate Court and upholding Trial Court's order. [Paras 1, 4]

Legal Principles for Second Appeal – Limited scope of second appeal under CPC – Supreme Court's precedent in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamal outlining criteria for substantial question of law in second appeals – Appellant's arguments primarily factual, not raising substantial legal questions. [Paras 5-6, 29]

Undertaking and Extension of Time for Vacating Property – Appellant's undertaking to vacate property by 21.01.2024 – Conditional agreement to pay increased user charges in case of non-compliance – Extension granted for vacating property, subject to the fulfillment of undertakings. [Para 7]

Execution Stayed and Directions for Compliance – Stay on execution of decree until 21.01.2024 – Appellant directed to file affidavit of undertaking and appear before Executing Court for handing over possession. [Para 8]

Appeal Outcome – Disposal of appeal with upholding of judgments of First Appellate Court and Trial Court – Decree of possession affirmed. [Para 9]

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off – Use of “CERTIFIED SCRUM MASTER” and associated logo by defendants constitutes infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademarks – Plaintiff’s registered Certification Trade Marks (CTMs) “CERTIFIED SCRUMMASTER”, “CSM”, and associated device marks infringed by defendants’ use of deceptively similar marks and logos – Defendants not authorized to use plaintiff’s CTMs. [Paras 40-50, 82]

Section 76(3) Trade Marks Act – Defendants’ registered mark “CSM” not subject to injunction – Both plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks registered under Trade Marks Act, one being a CTM – No injunction against use of defendant’s registered word mark “CSM”. [Paras 51-55]

Validity of Plaintiff’s Trademark Registrations – Plaintiff’s marks “CERTIFIED SCRUMMASTER”/”CSM” prima facie valid – Section 31(1) Trade Marks Act provides registration as prima facie evidence of validity – Defendants’ challenge on grounds of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 70 of Trade Marks Act not prima facie sustainable. [Paras 68-74]

Passing Off – Plaintiff’s claim of passing off arguable, pending trial – Insufficient prima facie evidence of accumulated goodwill and reputation by plaintiff for definitive conclusion at interlocutory stage. [Paras 79-81]

Interlocutory Injunction Granted – Defendants, and all others acting on their behalf, enjoined from using “CERTIFIED SCRUM MASTER” and associated logo – No injunction against use of word mark “CSM” by defendants. [Paras 82-83]

Future Proceedings – Matter listed before learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for further proceedings on 15 December 2023. [Para 85]

Murder and Grievous Injury – Conviction of Mohan Kumar under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC for the murder of Padma Kumari and inflicting grievous injury on Binod Kumar – Sentenced to life imprisonment and fines, with sentences to run consecutively. [Para 1]

Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Case based on circumstantial evidence without eye-witness testimony – Inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, with key witnesses not supporting the prosecution's case. [Paras 5, 9-15, 20-21, 25-27]

Investigative Lapses – Issues raised regarding the investigation process, including the absence of a serological examination of the weapon and the lack of the appellant's signature on the seizure list, raising doubts about the seizure's authenticity. [Paras 6, 16, 25]

Legal Principles on Circumstantial Evidence – Application of legal principles concerning circumstantial evidence – Requirement for the prosecution to establish a conclusive chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. [Paras 21-22, 28-30]

Decision – Appeal allowed, conviction under Sections 302/326 IPC set aside – Mohan Kumar acquitted on the benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case. [Para 31]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Associate Decor Limited – Challenge to the minutes of the 22^nd Committee of Creditors meeting for being non est and illegal – Petitioner contending inadequate notice period for Committee of Creditors’ meeting contrary to Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations. [Paras 3, 7, 9, 13-15]

Notice Requirements and Legal Provisions – Insufficiency in notice period for the Committee of Creditors meeting – Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations necessitate a minimum notice period, reducible to 24 hours – Inadequate notice rendering the meeting and its resolutions unsustainable and non est. [Paras 14-15]

Resolution Professional Conduct – Allegations against the resolution professional’s conduct in the insolvency resolution process – Petitioner’s claims of hurried proceedings and erroneous information memorandum – Court reserving the petitioner’s liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI under Section 196 of the Code. [Paras 15-16]

Reconsideration of Restructuring Proposal – Directive for the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the petitioner’s restructuring proposal under Section 12A of the Code in light of the quashed resolutions. [Para 17]

Decision – Writ petition allowed in part – Resolutions of the 19^th Committee of Creditors meeting dated 11-02-2020 and the minutes of the 22^nd meeting dated 21-12-2022 quashed – Petitioner granted liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI – Committee of Creditors directed to reconsider the restructuring proposal. [Paras 18(i)-(vi)]

Input Tax Credit & Special Rebate under KVAT Act – Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 – Petitioners, rubber dealers, entitled to input tax credit and special rebate under Sections 11 and 12 of KVAT Act for tax paid on local rubber purchases. [Para 2]

Exemption Notifications and Inter-State Sales – Notification under Section 8(5) of CST Act exempting natural rubber from CST – Impact on input tax credit for inter-state sales exempted from tax under 3^rd proviso to Section 11(3) and Section 12(1) of KVAT Act. [Paras 3, 7]

Assessment Authority’s View – Disallowance of input tax credit and special rebate for inter-state sales of exempted goods under Annexures-I and II notifications, despite actual payment of CST under Section 8(1) of CST Act. [Para 3]

Appellate Tribunal Decision – Adjustment of CST paid on inter-state sales against demands raised due to disallowance of input tax credit, based on Annexure-VII notification clarifying the optionality of Annexures-I and II notifications. [Para 4]

High Court Judgment – Disposal of revisions without modification, affirming Tribunal’s limited relief. Exemption notifications not optional in statutory context, affecting input tax credit entitlement. Questions of law answered against assesses and in favor of Revenue. [Para 7]