![[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)
State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MEGHALAYA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar. JJ. ) Original…
IBC – Even the nonpayment of a part of debt when it becomes due and payable will amount to default on the part of a Corporate Debtor – In such a case, an order of admission under Section 7 of the IB Code must follow –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SURESH KUMAR REDDY — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
(CrPC) – S 313 – (IPC) – Ss 302 read with 120B – Murder – Criminal Trial – Examination of accused – Failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity – It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR @ SUMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Rape of a minor by Inspector – High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY DUBEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – Sections 3 and 4 – – eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord is circumscribed, by the Act – Hence, the court is required to ensure that even the limited ground(s) for eviction by the landlord of the cultivating tenant, are not frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. L.R. EKNATH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…
Greater inconvenience is likely to be caused by passing any interim order of constitution of CoC in relation to the corporate debtor as a whole; and may cause irreparable injury to the home buyers – This Court are not inclined to alter the directions in the order impugned as regards the projects other than Eco Village-II.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAM KISHORE ARORA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Clauses 5 and 6(2) of Fifth Schedule and Article 19(1)(e) – Whether a non Tribal has the right to vote in a Scheduled Area – Right to vote will be governed by Part III of the 1950 Act – Every eligible voter is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of a constituency, in which he is ordinarily residing – Therefore, any person eligible to vote who is ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area has a right to vote, even if he is a non Tribal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIVASIS FOR SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…
Request of recusal is nothing but an attempt to indulge in Forum Shopping and Bench Hunting and to avoid the Bench with mala fide intention – Prayer for recusal is rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJIV KUMAR RAJENDRABHAI BHATT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Police officers duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI GULAM MUSTAFA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – If an Arbitrator construes the term of contract in a reasonable manner, the award cannot be set aside with reference to the deduction drawn from construction
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GOA — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…