![[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 equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. R.D. SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi,…
In the interests of justice, transfer of the proceedings is warranted – direct that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V A D J at Visakhapatnam, A P be transferred to the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge/competent court, Lothagudem Bhadhradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT AKKIREDDY NIHAARIKA — Appellant Vs. AKKIREDDY KARTEEK KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Transfer…
Whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held, An application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of 1987 Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Appellant Vs. YUNUS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Mere agreement of the steps to be taken in future for the division of the properties – HELD If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH — Appellant Vs. P.R. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Railways service benefits under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) Scheme – An employee who received service benefits till the date of superannuation, was not entitled to make a claim under the LARSGESS scheme – Benefit of the LARSGESS scheme could not be extended where an employee had attained the age of superannuation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A NISHANTH GEORGE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…
Alibi of employee has not been accepted but that might be plausible and considering his 25 years of long service and fortunately it was a minor accident which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and considering the fact that the employee has since died – converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if any, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. SANYA SAHAYAK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator – Courts had very limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Courts are to take a ‘prima facie’ view, as explained therein, on issues relating to existence of the arbitration agreement. Usually, issues of arbitrability/validity are matters to be adjudicated upon by arbitrators. The only narrow exception carved out was that Courts could adjudicate to ‘cut the deadwood’. Ultimately the Court held that the watch word for the Courts is ‘when in doubt, do refer’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…
Compensation sought by the appellants cannot be granted as Section 12-B of MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – Appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation.
UPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.B. PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Recalling of order – When order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same is not required to be recalled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
Reservation – No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation – No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation – If the under-representation of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…