![[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)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of arbitrator — Dispute regarding existence of arbitration agreement — Held, incorporation of arbitration clause from earlier document into later contract requires clear intention to incorporate, not mere reference.
2026 INSC 484 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIRANI DEVELOPERS Vs. NEHRU NAGAR SAMRUDDHI CHS LTD. AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction — High Court’s power under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, subject to self-imposed restrictions — Ordinarily, it should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, such as pursuing remedies under statutory frameworks like the CrPC or BNSS, unless specific exceptions apply.
2026 INSC 442 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Applicability of Order 22 of CPC to death of parties — Section 13(7) made Order 22 of CPC applicable to death of complainant or opposite party, allowing substitution of legal heirs if the right to sue survives — This procedural rule must be harmoniously construed with substantive law like Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs survivability of causes of action
2026 INSC 443 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMUD LALL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…
Service Law — Recruitment Rules — Eligibility Criteria — Date of Possession of Qualification — For recruitment to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, the essential educational qualification must be possessed by the candidate on the date of submission of the application, not at a later stage like the interview or examination date.
2026 INSC 444 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. LAVANSHU SANKHLA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Public Administration and Service Rules — Interpretation of merger of departments and promotion rules — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment that questioned a government order (G.O.) granting a notional promotion to an employee — The Court found that the original G.O — was issued in compliance with prior High Court orders and a merger policy that was not challenged by any party, thus validating the promotion and subsequent advancements.
2026 INSC 446 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER Vs. R. SASIPRIYA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…
Companies Act, 1956 — Sections 397, 398, 41 and 2(27) — Member of a company — Locus standi to file petition for oppression and mismanagement — Essential requirement is not just formal entry in register of members, but also equitable consideration of proprietary interest and conduct of the company treating the person as a member
2026 INSC 447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BAIS SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. DHANANJAY PANDE ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) — Bail — Petitioner granted bail by Supreme Court after being in judicial custody for over a year, despite charge being framed, with no witnesses examined yet.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJADURAI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)…
Corporate Veil — Lifting of — May be lifted where associated companies are inextricably connected, forming part of one concern, or to prevent evasion of obligations or protect public interest. In this case, subsidiary companies were found to be mere fronts for the holding company’s development activities, justifying lifting the corporate veil.
2026 INSC 449 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c) — Criminal Contempt — Publication of scandalous matter or doing any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs justice — Appellant, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association and a senior advocate, made unwarranted and disreputable allegations in a press conference against the High Court and its Registry, calling it a ‘gambling den’ and alleging preferential treatment — The High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the Appellant. Judicial Magnanimity and Reform — The Supreme Court demonstrated exceptional magnanimity and a desire for reform by suspending the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that while accountability is paramount, it must be balanced with patience to guide and elevate, rather than resorting to punitive destruction.
2026 INSC 470 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YATIN NARENDRA OZA Vs. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARATAND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — “in any place within public view” — Both sections require the act of insult, intimidation, or abuse to occur in a place visible to the public — This is a mandatory condition for constituting the offence.
2026 INSC 468 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V.…