Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Banking

Banking

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Section 6 – HELD under Rules, the Banks are required to preserve the record for five years and eight years respectively. On this ground also, permitting the show cause notices and the proceedings continued thereunder of the transactions which have taken place much prior to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable. No order in writting of RBI produced for maintaining record for longer time period

Aug 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CITI BANK, N.A. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

Banking

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Chapter III B – Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non­Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and regulated by Reserve Bank of India.

May 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Banking

Order of High Court Granting Interim Relief – Quashing of -High Court has as such made the proceedings before the DRAT infructuous, as after the impugned judgment and order nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT – Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment and order

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. KAMAL GARG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Banking

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 – Rule 107(14)(i) – Setting aside of auction sale – No sale shall be set aside on the ground of material irregularity, mistake or fraud unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity, mistake or fraud.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEENADAYAL NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUNJAJI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw