![[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)
(CrPC) – Section 125 – Maintenance to wife and minor child – Husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute – Direction issued to husband shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to wife.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 14 – Grant of licence – requirements relating to the capital adequacy, creditworthiness, or code of conduct as may be prescribed by the Central Government, and no such applicant, who complies with all the requirements for grant of licence, shall be refused grant of licence on the ground that there already exists a licensee in the same area for the same purpose.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…
(CPC) – Order 14 Rule 2(2) – Preliminary Issue – Limitation – Determination of – Issue limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUKHBIRI DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 3 and 560(5) – Striking off name of company – Defunct company – As per the last balance sheet filed for the year 20022003, the paid up share capital of the Company in question was Rs.7,000/ – such acompany defunct company caanot be restored after 16 years stiking of name.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NIRENDRA NATH KAR — Appellant Vs. GOPAL NAVIN BHAI DAVE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Termination of Pregnancy – All women, married or unmarried, are entitled to safe and legal abortion – Object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH X — Appellant Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Compassionate Appointment – The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased – respondent a married daughter her elder sister application for appointment already dismissed HELD respondent not dependent on her mother so claim for appointment on death of mother rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) — Respondent ( Before…
Bail – HELD order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of SCOI – the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMINUDDIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…
HELD income of the Deceased is computed by adding the amount awarded under the two parts ( Rs 10,93,000/- + Rs 2,50,000/-), which comes to Rs 13,43,000/-. In terms of Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, forty per cent of the income has to be added towards future prospects, which would come to Rs 18,80,200/-. After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma , the net amount comes to Rs 14,10,150/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency on account of the Deceased’s income is calculated at Rs 2,25,62,400/-. We further grant compensation under the remaining conventional heads as per the decisions in Pranay Sethi Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH K. RAMYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…
Land Acquisition – When the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA…
A & C Act, 1996 Section 31(7)(a) – HELD it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the principal award, this is a fit case wherein the interest at all the three stages, that is pre-reference period, pendente lite and post-award period, requires to be reduced.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOKUL CHANDRA KANUNGO (DEAD) THR. HIS LRS. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…