![[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)
Power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is well 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 REGIONAL MANAGER, UCO BANK AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 21, 21(4) and 21(5) – Claim for damages in lieu of specific performance of contract – Appellant did not claim any relief for damages – Even in the appeal filed by the Appellant, no relief for damages was claimed by the Appellants – Appellant not entitled for damages – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNIVERSAL PETRO CHEMICALS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. B. P. PLC AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 – Regulations 6, 7 and 116 -Exemption from the applicability of Regulation 6 & 7 of the Safety Regulations by the order dated 13.02.2019 can be granted only in favour of persons who were employed with the KSEBL on the date of the formulation of the transfer scheme and such of those employees who have joined service after 31.10.2013 were not entitled to such an exemption.
Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 1498-1500 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)…
Service Law – Promotion – considering Rule 14, it can be seen that the bar was against teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same academic year – In the present case it cannot be said that the appellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the same academic year
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. DHARMARAJ — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna,…
Re-auction – re-auction of the entire properties by fixing the upset price higher than what has been fixed earlier, the auction purchaser who purchased the property in the year 1998- Valuation as on the date of auction is the relevant consideration and not the value after so many years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. KUMARA GUPTA — Appellant Vs. SRI MARKENDAYA AND SRI OMKARESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 15(1) and 19(1)(g) – Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Section 33(1)(w)(i) and 33(w)(ii) and 162(1) – Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960 – Rules 108A, 109, 118, 207 and 209- Condition limiting female performers in bars – Restriction directly transgresses Article 15(1) and Article 19(1)(g)-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HOTEL PRIYA, A PROPRIETORSHIP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Commercial agreement – Modification – HELD if prejudicial to the interest of the parties inter se in law be neither permissible nor advisable to give effect anterior to the date of modification/altercation in terms and conditions of the agreement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
HELD indication regarding non-creamy layer status in the caste certificate is one of substance and not of form. The very eligibility to seek the benefit of reservation would depend upon the non-creamy layer status.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROBIR GHOSH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…
Policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATYA DEV BHAGAUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…
Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 – Rule 174(2)(c) – Under Rule 174(2)(c) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 – discretion will have to be exercised reasonably, fairly as the facts and circumstance would clearly demonstrate – For instance, where the vehicle sought to be substituted is marginally and inconsequentially older than the vehicle covered under the permit, the Authority may perhaps be justified in permitting such an application
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAJU ETC. — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil…