HELD the question stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed no more res integra in view of Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Another 2022 SCCOnline SC 1392
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI FINANCE LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before…
(CrPC) – Section 482 – – howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law – Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
Service Law – Post-retirement benefits – Where employment is based on a fake community certificate the law is settled that post-retirement benefits cannot be granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R SUNDARAM — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 354, 354-B, 376 and 506 – Cancellation of anticipatory bail – sufficient material in the FIR that would prima facie attract the provision of Section 376, IPC – These factors ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent No.2/accused for granting him anticipatory bail – Impugned orders, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused, cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 – Section 9 – – It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose – It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
Grant of freehold rights on land – Grant of freehold rights cannot be granted contrary to the terms of allotment and covenants of lease deeds.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K.…
Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1960 – Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORISSA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD KARMACHARI SANGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh…
Proposal to convert the subject land from leasehold to freehold as per the policy- policy in question cannot be applied in relation to the subject land. Therefore, we find no necessity to delve further into the other issues raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that it has no policy to grant freehold rights in its allotments. Suffice it would be to say for the present purpose that the claim of the petitioner for freehold rights in relation to the subject land cannot be accepted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K.…
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Constitution Article 243Q(2) – protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PADVIDHAR PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK VA KENDRA PRAMUKH SABHA — Appellant Vs. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant…






