(A) Succession Act (39 of 1925) , S.276, S.63— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.68— Grant of probate - Execution of Will - Validity - Will was duly executed by testator in favour of plaintiffs in presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound disposing state of mind - Same was proved through testimony of one of attesting witnesses, who was examined by Civil Court - Said witness categorically stated that testator executed Will and, both he and testator signed Will in presence of each other - No evidence to conclude that testator was not in a fit or stable mental condition at time of execution of a Will, or that a Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, or presence of any element of undue influence - Relevant provisions were complied with - Grant of probate was proper.

Misc. Appeal No. 382 of 2002,D/-25-03-2010 (MP)-AffirmedAIR 2020 SC 3102-Relied on(Paras121314)

(Para 12 13 14)

(B) Succession Act (39 of 1925) , S.276, S.63— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.68— Grant of probate - Execution of Will - Proof - For execution of Will, apart from statutory compliance, it has to be proved that testator signed Will out of his own free Will; at time of execution he had a sound state of mind; he was aware of nature and effect thereof and Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.

(Para 11)

Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.90— Payment of tax - Exemption from - Assessee invested in project by setting up a permanent establishment in Oman - As company was registered as separate company under Omani laws, it aided in promoting economic development within Oman - As per letter of Omani Finance Ministry, dividend distributed by all companies, including tax-exempt companies would be exempt from payment of income tax in the hands of recipients - By extending the facility of exemption, Govt. of Oman intended to achieve its object of promoting development within Oman by attracting investments - Contention that letter had no statutory force was not tenable, as same was only a clarificatory communication interpreting the provisions of Omani Tax Laws - Assessee was rightly exempted from payment of tax.

(Para 16 18 19)

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.41 R.5— Stay of execution of decree - Pendency of appeal - Decree for permanent injunction on ground of passing off - At time of final hearing of suit, appellant failed to prove figures of sales and expenditure incurred on advertising and promotion of product - Only by producing statements without proving contents thereof, appellant could not have established its reputation or goodwill in connection with goods - Said aspect made out a prima facie case for grant of stay to execution of decree in favour of defendant/respondent regarding passing off action - Even assuming that allegation of deceptive similarity in labels used by respondent was established by appellant, one of the three elements which appellant was required to prove, was not proved - Order of High Court staying decree granting injunction for action of passing off was justified.

D/-23-06-2021 (Bom)-AffirmedAIROnline 2015 SC 156-Relied on(Paras121314)

(Para 12 13 14)

(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.41 R.5— Stay of execution of decree - Pendency of appeal - Decree for permanent injunction on ground of infringement of copyright - When permission was sought by defendant/respondent to use infringed labels, plaintiff/appellant raised objections in writing against grant of permission to respondent - It was not as if those objections were not pursued, but there was a positive act on part of appellant of withdrawing said objections by submitting letters of withdrawal in which, admittedly, it was not mentioned that withdrawal was conditional - Suit was filed by appellant about one and half years after objections were withdrawn - Prima facie case of acquiescence by appellant made out by respondent - Order of High Court staying decree in respect of infringement of copyright was justified.

1994 AIR SCW 2760-Relied on(Para16)

(Para 16)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (7 of 1986) , S.2, S.3— Bail - Provisions of Gangsters Act had been invoked against accused on basis of single case mentioned in gang chart, however, he had been released on bail in that case - He did not have criminal antecedents - Bail was granted.

(Para 11 12)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989) , S.14A(2), S.3(2)V— Bail - Accused was languishing in jail since 12-03-2023 without any criminal history - Bail, granted.

(Para 6 7)