![[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)
When the auction bid of the respondent had been Rs. 1.935 crores for the assets under sale, the Company Court had fixed the value of immovable property therein at Rs. 1.4 crores; and the District Registrar was also satisfied with that valuation. Therefore, stamp duty was to be collected only on the said valuation i.e., Rs. 1.4 crores
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SUB REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM KOCHI 16 — Appellant Vs. K. SYED ALI KADAR PILLAI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and…
(CrPC) – Section 188 – Sanction – In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARTAJ KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CrPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 257 – the defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and to take just a contrary stand than taken before the Revenue Authority – Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject the plaint –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMLATA @ SUNITA — Appellant Vs. NASEEB BEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
HELD lotteries’ is a species of gambling activity and hence lotteries is within the ambit of ‘betting and gambling’ as appearing in Entry 34 List II. if lotteries are conducted by private parties or by instrumentalities or agencies authorized, by Government of India or the Government of State, it would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II – State Legislatures have legislative competence to impose tax on the lotteries conducted by other States in their State
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 31(6) and 126 -The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMIKANT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Section 71(e) – Army Act, 1950 – Section 52(f) and 123 – Dismissal from service – Procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation – It cannot be said that the respondent has actually committed fraud or did any such act, which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person – Dismissal not sustainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. GEN. (RETD.) S.K. SAHNI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…
Judicial review – Disciplinary proceeding – Re-appreciation of Evidence – Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UMESH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. )…
HELD it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused – In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and…
Specific performance of agreement to sell – Relief of – Merely because in the document the purpose of sale of the property was stated to be for the marriage expenses, the document which otherwise can be said to be an agreement to sell, will not become a loan agreement and/or security document
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RITESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BANGALORE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…