![[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)
Mandatory nature of the twin conditions has to be satisfied before an auction sale can be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90(3) – No sale could be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud in completing or conducting the sale.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. JAGAN SINGH AND CO. — Appellant Vs. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat…
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 HELD Respondent No. 2 validly exercised its powers under the MMC Act to direct the acquisition of the Appellants’ land. The argument by the Appellants that the MRTP Act maintains supremacy over the MMC Act is not the correct position of law, in our opinion, and the two statutes exist side-by-side with some degree of overlap. The powers under the MMC Act remain intact even in cases where they cover a subject that is also provided for in the MRTP Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…
HELD the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. NANDU @ NANDUA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal…
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 HELD we are of the opinion that Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act. However, on merits and for the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the acquisition in question.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M. MOHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
HELD reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of “benefit of doubt”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHOOL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…
Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 – The amendment with retrospective effect is to make the benevolent provisions equally applicable to teachers – The amendment seeks to bring equality and give fair treatment to the teachers – It can hardly be categorised as an arbitrary and high-handed exercise – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…
HJS – HELD board which conducted the vivavoce of the candidates who qualified in the written examination was different, there are hardly candidates who had qualified against the number of vacancies and it would be advisable that there should be one common board to evaluate the performance of all the candidates who may now qualify in the revised declaration of the result of written examination and that, would do justice to the candidates – Appeal Allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Inter-departmental communication cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment – Even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner-wife of the ex-serviceman, who died in July 1998 could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MAHADEO AND OTHERS — Appellant SMT. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
(NDPS) – Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband – But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…
The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE — Appellant Vs. PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, JJ.…