![[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)
Argument on lack of prior approval as per Section 17(2) of the ESI Act is obviated by the preamble to the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 – Contesting respondents have only supported the applicability of the DACP Scheme to claim promotion as Associate Professor after two years of service – Advertisements for recruitment mentioning the DACP Scheme would have no effect since they were in contravention of the applicable recruitment regulations – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -HELD High Court erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rules 13.7, 13.7(9) and 13.7(14) – Promotion – Head Constable to Superintendent of Police (SP) – Quota of outstanding performance – Held, Recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (CDP) headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
Dismissal from service – Fraud and manipulating of signatures of complainant -Respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier. It is a post of confidence. The respondent breached that confidence – In fact, the respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank, making it hardly a case for interference either on law or on moral grounds – Conduct established of the respondent did not entitle him to continue in service.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. OM PRAKASH LAL SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 2(u) 3 and 4 read with Section 19(1)(a) – Complaint – Lottery business can continue to be regulated by the Regulation Act – If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. — Appellant Vs. B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V.…
Insulting or Abusing SC-ST Person – Quantum of sentence – Appellant and his family members were insisting that the de facto complainant should vacate the shop in her possession – Reason for the incident appears to be the dispute over the said shop -Considering these facts and the fact that the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than 9 months, this is a fit case where the substantive sentence should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETRIVEL — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…
Held, When it is found that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.4 when he was appointed in the year 2018 and thereafter, he has been continued in service since last three years, to disturb him at this stage, would not be justifiable – In exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do the substantial justice, direct that while appointing the appellant as per the present order on the post of Assistant Professor (History), the respondent No.4 may not be disturbed and direct the State Government to continue the respondent No.4 and he be accommodated on any other vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARENDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 37 Rule 3 – Leave to defend – Grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and…
If bail is granted in a casual manner, the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. Propensity of accused tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses is an important factor to be borne in mind in such cases – High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the accused – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIBUNISHA — Appellant Vs. MEHARBAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 76 of…