![[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/State-Laws.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
![[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Constitution-of-India.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Allotment of Plot – Demand of additional price – Non-construction of plot within a period – Additional amount sought not be recovered at the stage of issuance of notice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,JJ. ) Civil…
1924 Sale Deed, 1967 Eviction Suit and 1978 Mutation Proceedings – that ownership rights in respect of an immovable property cannot be decided casually. We are actually left with no other option but to remand these appeals back to the High Court for effective adjudication on merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAVI KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K.…
Civil Suit – Declaration of Wakf Property – In the absence of any evidence of valid creation of a wakf in respect of the suit property, it cannot be recognized as a wakf so as to allow it to be continued as a wakf property irrespective of its use or disuse as a burial ground.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALEM MUSLIM BURIAL GROUND PROTECTION COMMITTEE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj…
Bank guarantee encashed in 2016 requisite amount stood transferred to Government account that was the end of the matter – This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose – statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S B AND T AG — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J. B.…
Insurance Policy – Exclusionary Clause – It is trite to say that wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause – In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. VEDIC RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi,…
Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Limit of – When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJIT KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…
GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE AWAY BENEFITS GRANTED TO TEACHERS UNDER UGC SCHEME RETROACTIVELY.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. MANU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna,…
(CrPC) – Sections 372 and 378(4) – Appeal against order of acquittal – – where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.
(2022) 119 ACrC 239 : (2022) 231 AIC 223 : (2022) AIR(SC) 670 : (2022) AIR(SC)Cri 460 : (2022) 1 ALT(Crl) 296 : (2022) 1 AndhLD(Criminal) 959 : (2022) 1…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is not constrained by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEENAL BHARGAVA — Appellant Vs. NAVEEN SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Contempt…
BURDEN OF PROVING A VALID TICKET LIES ON THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR COMPENSATION – Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed – Appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…