![[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)
Service Law – Dismissal of ISRO Scientist – Unauthorised Absence and publication of paper without permission – When such acts/conduct occur/occurs from a scientist in a sensitive and strategic organization, the decision to impose dismissal from service cannot be said to be illegal or absolutely unwarranted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. V.R. SANAL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Doctrine of legitimate expectation – If a state is allowed to make promises, and rescind the same without justification or explanation, it would lead to a situation wherein every action of the state would be bereft of accountability, and every person governed by the laws of this country would live in a state of fear and unrest, causing a chilling effect on the civil liberties of the people.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. K.B. TEA PRODUCT PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SILIGURI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 25(1) – Exemption from payment of duty – Withdrawal of amended customs notification – Judicial scrutiny can also extend to consideration of legality, and bona fides of the decision – Wisdom or unwisdom, and the soundness of reasons, or their sufficiency, cannot be proper subject matters of judicial review –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA ANOTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. B. P. PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 150(2) – Clarification regarding waiver of limitation – Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same can be heard in the open court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 4 – Offences of Money Laundering – Cancellation of Bail – Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Appellant Vs. ADITYA TRIPATHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1401…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – It is the duty of the referral court to decide the said issue first conclusively to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when there does not exist any arbitration agreement and/or when there is no valid arbitration agreement at all.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAGIC EYE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. GREEN EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Promotion of Judicial Officers as District Judges – Impugned Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification dated 18.04.2023 issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge are illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – It shall be ensured that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of the ICCs/LCs/ICs, details of the e-mail IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily available on the website of the concerned Authority/Functionary/ Organisation/Institution/Body
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AURELIANO FERNANDES — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Senior Advocates – An interview process would allow for a more personal and in-depth examination of the candidate – An interview also enables a more holistic assessment, particularly as the Senior Advocate designation is an honour conferred to exceptional advocates – A Senior Advocate is also required to be very articulate and precise within a given timeframe, which are values that can be easily assessed during an interview.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. INDIRA JAISING — Appellant Vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and…
Shiv Sena Case – Appointment of Mr. Shinde – Speaker by recognising the action of a faction of the SSLP without determining whether they represented the will of the political party acted contrary to the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, the 1986 Rules, and the Act of 1956 – Decision of the Speaker recognising Mr. Shinde as the Leader is illegal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH SUBHASH DESAI — Appellant Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., MR Shah,…