![[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)
Prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 34 of IPC – Appellant has been implicated only with the aid of section 34 – Appellant is acquitted of the charges against him – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GADADHAR CHANDRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal…
Once the Arbitrator, while awarding rent as counter claim had accepted the figures as quoted by the Eastern Coalfields Limited, no issue of any error on the part of the Arbitrator in not correctly calculating the rent could be raised – Application rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) M.A. Diary…
Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – Section 18 – Arbitration Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in making a reference. If there is no arbitration clause, the dispute arising between the parties to the contract must be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAMA KANT SINGH @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 HELD The non-communication of the ACRs to the appellant has been proved to be arbitrary and since the respondent choose to hold an enquiry into appellant’s alleged misconduct, the termination of his service is by way of punishment because it puts a stigma on his competence and thus affects his future career. In such a case, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHAY JAIN — Appellant Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet…
HELD the very objectives of holding back pension or the DCRG. One can be to recover the amounts found due from the delinquent employee of any nature whatsoever after appropriate notice and proceedings. The second eventuality is if an employee is dismissed from service. It can hardly be doubted that in the second eventuality of the dismissal from service the employee would lose all retirement benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. K. CHANDRAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…
In proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 the possession of excess urban land was taken over well before the Repeal Act came into force. In the premises, the Writ Petition filed by the present Review Petitioner was found to be without any substance
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH P. CHANDRIKA — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND CEILING AND URBAN LAND TAX AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday…
“Consequently, insofar as “Extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D(b) of the UAPA. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we accept the plea raised by the appellants and hold them entitled to the relief of default bail as prayed for.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. SADIQUE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.Ravindrabhat and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
HELD It is also contrary to the stated objective sought to be achieved by Para 3 of the 1986 OM, which is to “present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. ” The promotions of the PRIs before this court therefore, have to be treated as regular. HC was in error.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.S. MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Infringement of trade mark and passing off – Held, Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of adinterim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondentplaintiff was entitled for grant of adinterim injunction or not
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatagram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Gwalior Development Authority – determining seniority w.e.f. 1994, when first respondent would complete 12 years as Sub Engineer, it is tied up with the issue of the illegality of his promotion in 1987 without completing 12 years. More importantly, even proceeding to discern any merit that seniority should, at least, be governed with reference to the requirement of 12 years, in the facts of this case, in facts of case dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GWALIOR — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH SAXENA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…