![[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)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 354(3) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376, 302 and 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5 and 6 – Rape and Murder of a seven-year-old girl – Death Sentence – unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation – It would be just and proper to award the punishment of imprisonment for life to the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC while providing for actual imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PAPPU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal…
Appeal against acquittal – Murder – Common intention – Motive established – Therefore, once accused presence has been established and proved and specific role of exhortation was assigned to him, the High Court ought to have confirmed the conviction of accused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OMKAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. JAIPRAKASH NARAIN SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Rejection of plaint – A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS — Appellant Vs. N. SAILESH PRASAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…
HELD respondent-CBI is relying upon statements of 5 witnesses recorded under Section 164 of CrPC – Statements of the first two witnesses were recorded on 7th September 2021 and 11th November 2021 respectively. But the appellant was not named in both the charge sheets filed thereafter – Bail granted with conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Abhay…
C P C – Order II Rule 3 permits the plaintiff to join together different causes of action – No doubt it is a different matter that if there is a mis-joinder of causes of action, the power of the court as also the right of the parties to object are to be dealt with in accordance with law which is well settled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.R. PATIL — Appellant Vs. TULSA Y. SAWKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(i) – Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5 and 6 – Penetrative sexual assault on a girl child aged four years -It is a case where trust has been betrayed and social values are impaired – Therefore, the accused as such does not deserve any sympathy and/or any leniency
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAWABUDDIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 144 of…
Quashing of FIR – Held, In the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused-appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna…
HELD In the event, the appellant-Society is required to replace the present developer, while entering into a development agreement with the new developer, a clause shall be added therein incorporating an undertaking of the new developer that he shall abide by the directions contained in this Order.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMGAR SWA SADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. VIJAYKUMAR VITTHALRAO SARVADE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 – Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 32(2)(n) read with Section 40 – Land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) — Appellant Vs. A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
Benefit of parity or equality – A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality – In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality – Candidates could not claim the benefit of parity
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. MUTHUKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.…