![[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)
Appointment to NCC Constable – respondent No.1 did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHU KANT RANJAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Application for condonation of delay, that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondents – High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously – Reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane – Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity – Delay defeats equity – Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO — Appellant Vs. REDDY SRIDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
Conclude Disciplinary proceedings – It appreciate the steps taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which shall ensure to maintain the purity of the legal profession in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also impress upon the Bar Council of India/Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law as early as possible. Before Directions – Before any further directions are issued, response from the Ministry of Transport, Government of India to have their suggestions for remedial and preventive measures for curbing the menace of filing of false/fraud claim petitions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAFIQ AHMAD — Appellant Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 38E – Grant of ownership certificate -the protected tenants are deemed to be owners – Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers – Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) SLP (Civil) No.…
Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family – Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds – Application of the respondent for compassionate appointment shall stand dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…
Repayment of Borrowed Amount – A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is the one on whom the onus lies -In a suit for recovery of money, a defendant admitting the receipt of money but pleading that the same was a gratuitous payment, is obliged to prove that it was a gratuitous payment – Respondents miserably failed to discharge the onus of proof so cast upon them. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a decree
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANITA RANI V. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANITA RANI — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48(1) – Acquisition – Housing and development – Release of land – A notification under Section 48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing, to the original land owners – If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under Section 48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which in this case is the Parishad, and not the land owners – Therefore, This Court can understand if the Parishad makes out a grievance that their rights were taken away by the notification under Section 48(1)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
Respondents have taken up wholly untenable ground that the documents were signed under duress – Large number of documents such as invoices, debit notes and ST-1 Form spread over 3 months is unbelievable to be an exercise of duress – Stand of the respondents is wholly untenable and unjustifiable in law and is only to defeat the legitimate claim raised by the appellant – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Non-Performing Asset – Recovery of loan by auction of mortgaged property – Appeal against order of high court granting benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme to a borrower
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – At the same time when an order is passed without recourse to arbitration and in utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the Act will not apply.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and R. Subhash…