Criminal Appeal – Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appellant's challenge to the judgment of the High Court – Appellant convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act – Appeal against the judgment and order of the Trial Court – Appellant sentenced to imprisonment and fined – Appellant's wife permitted to proceed with the Appeal after his demise. [Para 1-2]

Factual Background – Allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Appellant, a Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, accused of accepting money as a bribe – Chargesheet laid by the Investigating Officer – Complainant and another accused deceased – Trial against the appellant alone – Prosecution's case based on demand of money as a bribe for official favor – Evidence presented by prosecution, including witnesses and documentary evidence. [Para 4-5]

Defendant's Defense – Appellant denies allegations, claims false implication – Appellant's explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Examination of defense witness – Accused's defense rests on denial of demand for illegal gratification. [Para 6]

Legal Considerations – Death of complainant and non-availability at trial – Prosecution's duty to prove case despite absence of complainant – Reliance on the decision in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh – Prosecution's ability to prove demand of illegal gratification by other means – Constitutional Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta vs. State clarifies the issue. [Para 9]

Statutory Presumption – Section 20 of PC Act – Presumption where public servant accepts undue advantage – Rebuttable presumption – Accused's burden to dispel presumption by reasonable and probable explanation – Evidence of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings – Shift of burden on appellant – Appellant fails to dispel statutory presumption. [Para 10-12]

Decision – Appellant found guilty under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act – Well-considered findings by Trial Court and High Court – No valid grounds for interference – Criminal appeal devoid of merits and dismissed. [Para 13-14]

Succession and Will - Validity of Will - Requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Execution of Will - Proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Principles for proving the validity and execution of a Will - Compliance with statutory provisions - Examination of attesting witnesses - Removal of suspicions - Role of the propounder - Allegations of fraud, fabrication, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances - Test of judicial conscience - Factors to consider in evaluating the execution of a Will. [Para 7-11]

Validity of Will - Application of principles for proving the validity and execution of the Will - Testimony of attesting witnesses - Compliance with statutory requirements - Lack of evidence to conclude mental instability or suspicious circumstances - No undue influence detected - No interference warranted - Allegations of bigamy and second marriage not relevant to the main issue. [Para 12-16]

Disposition of Appeal - Lack of merit in the appeal - Dismissal of the appeal - Consequential benefits to be disbursed in accordance with the law. [Para 16]

Civil Appeal – Redemption of Mortgage – Appellant, an auction purchaser, challenges High Court's order allowing borrowers to redeem the mortgage – Complex factual background involving loan default, auction proceedings, and redemption offer – Key issue of whether borrowers' offer to pay Rs. 129 crore for redemption is acceptable – Detailed analysis required. [Para 1-21]

SARFAESI Act – Interpretation of Amended Section 13(8) – The Telangana High Court's judgment in Amme Srisailam – Evaluation of the High Court's reasoning – Misplaced reliance on S. Karthik (supra) – Amendment to Section 13(8) subsequent to S. Karthik (supra) – Failure to consider the impact of the 2016 Amendment in S. Karthik (supra) – The High Court's misinterpretation of S. Karthik (supra) – Concern Readymix's misplaced relevance – Distinction between special enactment (SARFAESI Act) and general enactment (Act 1882) – Overriding clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act – Impact of the 2016 Amendment on the inconsistency between Section 13(8) and Act 1882 – The necessity for a harmonious interpretation of Sections 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act – ejusdem generis principle – Interpretation of the expression "or any other law for the time being in force" in Section 37 – The significance of the change in the Joint Committee's proposal – Headings and marginal notes not determinative of a provision's substance – Ensuring sanctity and legal validity of auction processes under SARFAESI Act – Precluding borrowers from thwarting auctions by redeeming mortgages at the last moment – Preserving the SARFAESI Act's objective of timely recovery of dues by banks without court intervention. [Para 73-82]

Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI Matters – Examination of the need for High Court interference in the present case – Key facts:

(a) The appellant successfully bid Rs. 105.05 crore for a secured asset.

(b) The Bank confirmed the sale to the appellant on June 30, 2023.

(c) On July 27, 2023, the appellant paid the full bid amount of Rs. 105.05 crore to the Bank.

(d) Out of this amount, the Bank appropriated Rs. 63,50,45,000 against the Borrowers' dues.

(e) The Bank failed to issue the sale certificate to the appellant on July 27, 2023.

(f) The Borrowers invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226, fearing their application in DRT might be denied.

(g) The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition, citing a consent granted by the Bank to extend the Borrowers' repayment deadline until August 31, 2023.

Justification for entertaining the Writ Petition – High Court's rationale for entertaining the Writ Petition based on "peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case" and consensus between the Respondent Bank and the Petitioners – Analysis of High Court's decision – Conclusion that Writ Petition was not an abuse of process. [Para 91]

High Court's Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Reminder of High Courts not to entertain petitions under Article 226 if an effective remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act – Citing Satyawati Tondon case and emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court – Discretion to entertain such petitions should be exercised cautiously. [Para 92]

Supreme Court's observations in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Recognition of exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy – High Court's reluctance to entertain a writ petition when an effective alternative remedy exists is still valid – Reference to Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case, and other similar judgments. [Para 93]

Supreme Court's observations in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. – Writ petition against a private financial institution (ARC) under Article 226 not maintainable – Borrowers must avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act – Criticism of High Court's grant of stay orders – Filing of writ petitions by borrowers deemed an abuse of process. [Para 94]

Supreme Court's observations in Varimadugu OBI Reddy – Disapproval of High Courts entertaining writ applications under Article 226 without exhausting alternative statutory remedies – Criticism of adopting a circuitous route to avoid pre-deposit conditions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 95]

Continued concern about High Courts ignoring statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act despite repeated Supreme Court pronouncements – Need for High Courts to exercise discretion cautiously in such matters. [Para 96]

Conduct of the Bank – Identification of the root cause in the Bank's actions – Failure to issue a sale certificate to the auction purchaser despite full payment and redemption rights lapsing – Acceptance of the borrower's offer for redemption against the statutory provisions – Inconsistent actions by the Bank. [Para 97-100]

Bank's Duty to Follow the Law – Emphasis on the Bank adhering to the law as any other litigant – Mention of the Bank's duty to follow the SARFAESI Act's provisions – Criticism of the Bank's inconsistent actions and deviation from legal requirements. [Para 100-101]

Bank's Contrary Actions to Supreme Court Judgments – Highlighting the Bank's actions going against two specific Supreme Court judgments – Satyawati Tondon and Varimadugu OBI Reddy. [Para 101]

Supreme Court's Observations in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli – Emphasizing that when the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed – Equity cannot override the law – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments on this matter. [Para 102]

Conclusions:

(i) High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction not justified when borrowers had alternative remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

(ii) Confirmation of sale by the Bank vested the auction purchaser with the right to obtain a sale certificate, per Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Act.

(iii) Borrower's right of redemption extinguished under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act upon publication of the auction notice under Rule 9(1).

(iv) Bank could not withhold the sale certificate and enter into a private arrangement with the borrower after confirming the sale.

(v) High Court could not apply equitable considerations to override statutory auction processes.

(vi) Criticism of certain High Court decisions that did not follow the correct legal position.

(vii) Bank ordered to refund the borrowers' deposit and issue the sale certificate, with the appellant making an additional payment.

(viii) Pending applications disposed of. [Para 105-109]

Appeal Allowed and setting aside the High Court's decision.

Arbitration - Validity of arbitral award - Dispute regarding delay in execution of a contract for a sewage water reclamation plant - Award allowed certain claims by Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited (BEEL) for compensation - Arbitral award lacks detailed analysis and reasons for findings, especially concerning delay responsibility and computation of damages - Damages should be commensurate with the loss sustained - Method of computation depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the appropriate method - Whimsical and absurd computation should be avoided - Award fails to provide a reasonable basis for the damages awarded, and thus, requires further scrutiny. [Para 7-16]

Construction Contract – Calculation of Damages – Overheads and Profits – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – Challenge to the Award – Principles for Computation of Damages Under Hudson’s Formula – Application of Formula to Assess Loss of Overheads and Profits – Need for Justification and Care in Applying the Formula – Avoiding Double Recovery – Arbitral Tribunal's Failure to Adhere to Established Principles – Inflated Award of Damages – Overlapping Claims – Lack of Justification for Computed Loss – Failure to Apply Mitigation Principle – Award for Idle Machinery and Equipment – Lack of Reasoning for Award – Challenge to the Award Sustained. [Para 17-29]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Scope of Court's Power to Review Awards under Section 34 - Interpretation of "in conflict with the public policy of India" - Legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements - The need to interpret provisions as they existed at the time of filing objections to the award - Examination of amendments introduced by Act No. 3 of 2016 and judgments on the amended Section 34 not necessary. [Para 30]

Post-award interference and the role of courts under Section 34 of the A&C Act - Emphasis on party autonomy in arbitration - Arguments for and against post-award court interference - Balancing party autonomy with fundamental rights and due process - Courts' intervention justified when the award is unfair, arbitrary, perverse, or infirm in law. [Para 31]

Analysis of Section 34 of the A&C Act before and after the 2016 amendment - Grounds for setting aside an arbitral award - Examination of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 34 - Detailed discussion of the grounds for setting aside an award, including incapacity, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of proper notice, disputes beyond the scope of arbitration, and non-compliance with arbitration agreements. [Para 33-35]

Discussion of 'public policy' in Section 34 - Wide and narrow interpretations - Consideration of public interest, justice, morality, and legality - Impact of legislative changes and judicial decisions on the interpretation of 'public policy.' [Para 36-38]

Court's role in reviewing awards - Judicial approach, natural justice, and avoidance of irrationality - Principles governing interference with arbitral awards - Three fundamental principles constituting 'fundamental policy of Indian law' - Requirements for an award to be set aside, including irrationality, shock to the conscience, and patent illegality. [Para 41-43]

Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 45-46]

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]