![[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)
Held the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. The doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date. (2005) 1 SCC 705 reiterated .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEERA TRADERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLA JAIN — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 5996-5997…
U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 – HELD held that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Dishonour of cheque – When, the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company – Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process – Quashing of complaint set aside
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SMS ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S.…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer Complaint – Relations between the appellant and the respondent is purely “business to business” relationship – As such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of ‘commercial purpose’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIKANT G. MANTRI — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Proof of – A case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution – Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established – Appellant acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. SHANTHAMMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Partition Suit – Relief in Second Appeal – Entitlement – Plaintiff not entitled to relief in the second appeal on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court before the First Appellate Court, is not sustainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66(B) – Exemption from service tax – Services provided in the nature of contract labour not job work – On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
Cheating and forgery – Prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. – Filing of complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement is a ulterior motive of harassing the accused persons – Proceeding quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABU VENKATESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 – Regulation 9, 10, 11 and 12 – Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued – Held, Person has a right to disclosure of the material relevant to the proceedings initiated against him
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. TAKANO — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv…
HELD constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of the appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATION-1)/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UCO BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…