Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC - Challenge to the judgment of the High Court - Dismissal of certain appeals while acquitting one co-accused - Detailed examination of the case facts and circumstances - Evaluation of witness testimonies - Examination of self-defense plea - Indiscriminate firing leading to casualties - Presence of appellants on the roof during the incident - Alleged exhortation of Babu Ram to fire shots - Issue of common intention - Conviction and sentencing of appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC - Benefit of doubt to co-accused Vijay – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Para 1-15]

Conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC - Lack of evidence establishing a common intention to commit the murder - Two deceased individuals, Anil and Vijay, were not related to the accused party, and there was no animosity between them - Prosecution's case relied on the appellants' general exhortation to Babu Ram not to spare Satpal's supporters - Inconsistent testimony regarding the sequence of events and whether the two deceased supported Satpal - Insufficient evidence to conclusively show that the appellants exhorted Babu Ram to fire shots at the two deceased - Babu Ram's individual act cannot be attributed to the appellants without clear and cogent evidence of a common intention - Conviction under Section 34 IPC for murder of the two deceased not sustainable. [Para 27-31]

Criminal Offense - Liability for Offense Punishable under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Evaluation of whether appellants could escape liability for the offense of Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC - Determination dependent on whether appellants committed acts specified in Section 300 IPC in furtherance of common intention - Appellants' knowledge of the imminently dangerous act leading to the death or bodily injury of individuals - Nature of indiscriminate firing, number of injured persons, and appellants' involvement - Appellants held liable for the offense of Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. [Para 32-33]

Effect of Non-disclosure of Incriminating Circumstance - Examination of whether appellants' conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC stood vitiated due to the failure to disclose the incriminating circumstance of exhortation during the recording of statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Common charge framing order charging appellants with offenses - Questions put to appellants under Section 313 CrPC - Appellants' denial of involvement and claims of false implication - Prejudice and failure of justice - Legal principles on the effect of non-disclosure of incriminating circumstances during Section 313 CrPC examination - Failure to raise objections during the trial - Absence of prejudice to the accused - Conviction not vitiated. [Para 34-45]

Disposition of Appeals - Acquittal of appellants for the offense of Section 302 IPC with Section 34 IPC - Upholding of conviction and sentence for the offense of Section 307 IPC with Section 34 IPC - Cancellation of bail bonds and order to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, if any, under Section 307/34 IPC - Disposition of all three appeals. [Para 46-47]

Civil Appeal – Second Appeal – Violation of Procedure in Framing Substantial Questions of Law – Lack of Adequate Opportunity for Parties to Address the Questions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings of Fact – Matter Remanded to High Court for Reconsideration.

Framing of Substantial Questions of Law in Second Appeal: The present case involves a violation of the procedural aspects of framing substantial questions of law in second appeal. The High Court framed substantial questions of law at the time of the second appeal hearing, without providing the parties with adequate time to prepare and address these questions. [Para 20]

Concurrent Findings of Fact: The High Court's judgment overturned concurrent findings of fact without clearly demonstrating exceptional circumstances or perversity in the lower courts' conclusions. The established principle is that in second appeals, the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact unless there are compelling reasons to do so, and these reasons should be based on a careful analysis of the trial court's records. [Para 25-27.2]

Remand for Reconsideration: Due to the procedural irregularities and the need for proper adherence to the law, the matter has been remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal procedure. The judgment and order of the High Court have been set aside, and the case is restored to the High Court's file for a fresh examination. [Para 28-30]

Fair Hearing and Procedural Compliance: This case underscores the importance of ensuring a fair hearing and procedural compliance, particularly in the framing of substantial questions of law and the review of concurrent findings of fact in second appeals. The proper procedure should be followed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness. [Para 20, 27.1]

Decision: The Civil Appeal is accepted, and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal procedure. Proper adherence to the law, including the framing of substantial questions of law and a fair hearing, is essential to ensure justice in second appeals. [Para 28-30]

Property Dispute – Title and Possession – Appeal against the Madras High Court’s judgment – Appellant’s claim to the title and possession of the entire suit property challenged – Suit for declaration of property ownership and permanent injunction – Appellant’s historical ownership and acquisition of the property outlined – Defendants contest ownership and allege ulterior motives – Trial court decrees suit in favor of appellant – First Appellate Court upholds the judgment – Second Appeal filed by defendants – High Court reverses concurrent judgments – Key questions of law framed and answered in favor of defendants – Appellant challenges the High Court’s judgment – Examination of substantial questions of law and applicability of legal principles under Section 100, CPC and the Evidence Act – High Court’s reliance on R. Nainar Pillai’s case questioned – Permissibility of certified copies as secondary evidence – Presumption of genuineness of certified copies discussed under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. [Para 1-22]

Evidence Act – Certified copy of a sale deed – Admissibility – Ext.A1 is a certified copy of a sale deed, the execution of which is not disputed – The objection regarding its admissibility was raised but is legally unsustainable – Sections 65(e), 74(2), 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, along with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, make the certified copy of the sale deed admissible in evidence for proving its contents. [Para 29-30]

Title of Property – Ext.A5 sale deed legally establishes the contents of the original sale deed No.1209/1928 of SRO Andipatti, conferring the right over the entire property covered by Exts.A1 and A5 to the appellant/plaintiff – No valid reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the lower courts – The judgment and decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, are restored. [Para 33-34]

Appeal allowed with no order as to cost. [Para 35]

Based on the information provided, it appears that this is a multi-faceted case involving issues like service termination, regularization, and screening processes. Here are the headnotes of the judgement, categorized according to the relevant paragraphs.

Civil Appeal – Teacher's Employment in Railway School 

Appeal by Samir Kumar Majumder, a school teacher, against High Court judgment denying him absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section and rejecting his claim for continuity in service. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Service Termination and Re-Engagement 

The appellant, initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher, claims that artificial breaks were created in his service by way of termination and reappointment around school vacations. [Para 2]

Tribunal Proceedings – Initial Relief Denied 

The appellant sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Guwahati, which passed an interim order but ultimately dismissed his application for regularization. [Para 3-5]

High Court Rulings – Circular Provisions 

The Tribunal’s decision was influenced by other cases and circulars, emphasizing that Railway Recruitment Board selection is essential for regular appointment. [Para 6]

Supreme Court Directions – Age Relaxation and Screening Process 

Appellant’s case was considered by the Supreme Court, which directed relaxation in the age bar and allowed for a screening process for regular absorption. [Para 7-8]

Post-Screening Appointment – Grievances 

The appellant was appointed as Primary Teacher after the screening but filed another Original Application expressing dissatisfaction with his post and pay-scale. [Para 9-11]

Continuity of Service – Discriminatory Treatment 

Appellant denied continuity in service while others were granted the same, solely because the Court had not made any specific order about him in this regard. [Para 12-13]

Central Administrative Tribunal's Decision – Calcutta Bench 

The Central Administrative Tribunal in Calcutta upheld the respondent-authorities' stand, relying on the appellant's original appointment as a primary teacher. [Para 15]

Based on the provided parts of the judgment, the headnotes can be crafted as follows:

Absorption as Assistant Teacher – Higher Secondary Section: Court holds appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section untenable; claim not raised in previous litigation and based on appointment as substitute primary teacher. [Para 29-32]

Law on Constructive Res Judicata: Court elaborates on the doctrine of constructive res judicata; appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section barred by the same. [Para 33-34]

Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: Court emphasizes the need for an end to litigation for the same cause based on public policy. [Para 35]

Claim for Continuity of Service: Court acknowledges appellant’s right to continuity of service based on Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 and prior Court orders; authorities’ denial of the same termed incorrect. [Para 37-38]

Rights under Master Circular: Court elucidates rights flowing from the Master Circular, including acquisition of temporary status and provisions for screening; appellant’s service should count from the date of acquiring temporary status. [Para 39-41]

Decision: Court dismisses appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section but affirms his right to continuity of service as a primary teacher in line with the Master Circular and prior Court orders. [Para 28-41]

Please note that the ‘Decision’ part is synthesized based on the content you provided. Feel free to modify as needed.

Income Tax - Taxability of Dividend Income - Interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Oman - Exemption of dividend income in Oman - Whether dividend income received by the assessee is taxable in India or exempt as per DTAA and Omani Tax Laws - Clarification by Omani Finance Ministry regarding tax exemption - Application of Article 25 of DTAA and Article 8 (bis) of Omani Tax Laws - Assessee entitled to exemption of dividend tax received from its Permanent Establishment (PE) in Oman, as per Article 8 (bis) of Omani Tax Laws - Corresponding tax treatment in India under Article 25 of DTAA - Omani Tax Laws provide tax incentive for promoting economic development, and the dividend income is exempt as a result. [Para 13-20]

Decision - Appeals dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate why the provisions of Article 25 of DTAA and Article 8 (bis) of Omani Tax Laws would not be applicable in granting exemption for dividend income. [Para 20]

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – High Court's reduction of maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000 per month – Drastic reduction without justification – Impugned order set aside, Trial Court's order of Rs. 5,000 per month maintenance restored – Appeal allowed. [Para 3-5]

Personal Maintenance – Importance of adequate maintenance for a woman – Court's duty to ensure a reasonable and fair maintenance amount – Reduction to an unreasonably low amount not justified. [Para 4]

Judicial Review – High Court's order subject to judicial review – Court's authority to set aside orders that are manifestly unjust – Restoration of Trial Court's order in the interest of justice. [Para 5]

Factual Aspects: Appellant, an entity selling country liquor under the label "Tango Punch," filed a suit claiming copyright infringement and passing-off against the respondent, who sold country liquor under the label "Two Punch Premium." The appellant alleged that the artistic label on their liquor bottles was copyrighted, and they sought a permanent injunction against the respondent from using a deceptively similar label. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent and damages. The respondent appealed this decision. [Para 1-4]

Civil Appeal – Infringement of Copyright and Passing-off – Appellant challenges High Court's interim order staying execution of a decree – Examination of evidence regarding reputation and goodwill crucial in passing-off action – Lack of evidence on appellant's part regarding sales and advertisement expenses – Stay justified on passing-off aspect. [Para 11-14]

Acquiescence: During the proceedings, it was revealed that the appellant had initially raised objections to the respondent's label during permission proceedings but later withdrew these objections. The Trial Court found this withdrawal significant, indicating possible acquiescence. The appellant filed the suit nearly one and a half years after withdrawing these objections. [Para 15-16]

Conduct of Bar – Disruptive conduct by advocate during cross-examination – Need for cooperation and fair conduct in trials – Delay caused by frequent objections – Advocates expected to act as officers of the Court and maintain fairness. [Para 18-19]

Decision – High Court's order of stay justified – Appeal dismissed with a clarification that observations made in this judgment and the impugned judgment should not influence the pending appeal's decision – No order as to costs. [Para 20]

Civil Appeal – Income Tax – Deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appellant, a co-operative society, claims deduction of profits and gains attributable to banking and credit facilities provided to its member co-operative societies – Interpretation of Section 80P – Dispute regarding the appellant's classification as a co-operative bank – Detailed analysis of the appellant's registration history and governing laws – Comparison with provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Reference to relevant judgments – Clarification of the appellant's status as a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities – Question of whether the appellant qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) – Examination of the provisions of the State Act, 1969 and State Act, 1984 – Evaluation of the appellant's activities in relation to banking business – Assessment of the appellant's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P of the Act – Consideration of legal arguments and submissions by both parties – Dispute over the appellant's classification and its entitlement to the deduction – [Para 10.1-10.13]

Income Tax Act – Deduction under Section 80P – Whether the appellant entity qualifies as a co-operative bank under Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR Act) – Examination of relevant provisions of BR Act and NABARD Act – Interpretation of the term "co-operative bank" – Kerala State Co-operative Bank's status as a state co-operative bank – Determination of the appellant's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. [Para 14-15]

Interpretation – Examining the definitions of "co-operative bank" in Section 56 of the BR Act and related provisions in the NABARD Act, 1981 – Distinction between co-operative banks and other co-operative societies engaged in banking business. [Para 14.1]

Legislative Intent – Section 80P of the Income Tax Act as a beneficial provision to encourage and promote the co-operative sector – Need for a liberal interpretation in favor of the assessee. [Para 14.2]

Eligibility Criteria – Key points to consider for eligibility for deduction under Section 80P – Requirement of a co-operative society being engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members – The burden of proof on the assessee to establish eligibility. [Para 14.3]

Banking Business – Definition of "banking" under Section 5(b) of the BR Act – Requirement for a co-operative society to engage in banking business as defined in the BR Act – Necessity of holding a license under Section 22 of the BR Act for carrying on banking business. [Para 15.4]

State Co-operative Bank – Significance of being declared a state co-operative bank under the NABARD Act, 1981 – Kerala State Co-operative Bank's status as a state co-operative bank as opposed to the appellant's non-declaration as such. [Para 15.12]

Conclusion – Determination that the appellant, although an apex co-operative society, is not a co-operative bank under the BR Act, 1949, and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. [Conclusion]

Decision – Allowance of the appeals filed by the appellant and setting aside of the orders of the Kerala High Court and other authorities – Holding that the appellant qualifies for deduction under Section 80P of the Act.

Civil Appeal – Substitution application allowed after condoning delay – Delinquent employee accused of unauthorized bus operation and subsequently dismissed – Application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of dismissal – Labour Court granted approval – Writ Petition filed and dismissed, pursued by deceased employee’s wife – Award modified punishment to one year’s salary with non-cumulative effect – High Court upheld the award – Appeal dismissed due to lack of interference with impugned judgment – Contention that previous writ proceedings under Section 33 precluded raising of an industrial dispute – No record of the order depriving the worker from filing an industrial dispute – Award’s observation regarding the High Court order presumed correct – No jurisdictional issue in the subsequent proceedings – Impugned judgment affirmed. [Para 1-11]