![[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)
(IPC) 307 – PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. The High Court has rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge under Section 307 IPC. PWs-1 & 2 have not spoken about the presence of the injured witness
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
HELD the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only. Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. Their engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE PRESIDENT, OIL FIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…
(CrPC) – Section 482 – (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Misappropriation of amount – Main allegations are against the co-accused and others – There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the co-accused and others – It cannot be said that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants for the offences – Quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
HELD – The value of the timber loaded in the truck SCDRC to examine this issue afresh without being influenced by its earlier order, including the order passed by the NCDRC. The appellants and the respondent would be permitted to file additional documents regarding delivery to the consignee and the valuation of the consignment, including the documents filed by the Bank before us. The parties would be asked to lead evidence through affidavits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIMARJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 61, 62, 84 and 86(1)(b) – Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 – Section 21 – Withdrawal of petition for grant of approval of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – – Appellants (DISCOMS) could not be permitted to change the decision at their whims and fancies and, particularly, when it is adversarial to the public interest and public good – APTEL has rightly held that the appellants-(DISCOMS) could not have been permitted to withdraw petition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION POWER COMPANY LIMITED OF ANDHRA PRADESH (APSPDCL) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER —…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of member of the Bar as the sole Arbitrator – Appeal against – – While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable – In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal – No case for interference is made out – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED MASROOR SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Bearing in mind these exceptional facts and circumstances, by means of the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the Legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby, a nullity, prompting its repeal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJAKUMAR OKRAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302/24 – Murder – Dying declaration – If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. VEERPAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 Rule 2A – Contempt of a civil nature- The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere “disobedience” but “wilful” and “conscious” – Implication of exercise of contempt jurisdiction, held that the power must be exercised with caution rather than on mere probabilities
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI,…
Fixation of pension – his emoluments for the purpose of ascertaining the average would be taken, at what they would have been, had he not been absent from duty or suspended provided that the benefit of pay in any officiating post would be admissible only if it is certified that he would have continued to hold that officiating post but for leave or suspension
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANIE LUKOSE — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…