Latest Post

[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. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [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. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Compensation – Deduction – Held, Location of the lands acquired and that part of the acquired land abuts the National Highway and at the same time, the sale instances pertain to comparatively smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI PARKASH ETC ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ETC ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

(CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Summoning as accused — crucial test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not – State appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. RAMJI LAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

(CrPC) – Section 108, 109, 110, 111, 117 and 122 – On violation, recourse, specified under Section 122 Cr.P.C. is permissible – HELD authorities to take action for violation of peace and tranquility in public order by the citizens of the locality, otherwise, by following the procedure as prescribed, the action may be taken by the competent authority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  DEVADASSAN — Appellant Vs. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A – Therefore, the  District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL VAHAB — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed