![[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 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – Investigation stayed and Proceedings quashed – Appeal against – Alleged suicide is of a person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is a public servant and against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made by the deceased. The suicide note contains a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA K C — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Service Law – Termination – HELD the respondent-University is directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if any. The appellant will not, however, be entitled to any disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle of “no work, no pay”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI — Appellant Vs. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram…
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii)- HELD High Court has recorded a finding of refusal on the part of the appellant to accept the report. The said finding is obvious erroneous as the endorsements on the postal envelope were not proved by examining the Postman. Moreover, the High Court has glossed over the mandatory requirement under subsection (2) of Section 13 of serving a copy of the report on the accused. Evidence adduced by the prosecution was of mere dispatch of the report. Hence, the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 was not complied with. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA PRASAD SAHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Sections 37, 38 and 39(9) – Rectification and Returns – Matching and correction process happens on its own as per the mechanism specified in Sections 37 and 38, after which Form GSTR3 is generated for the purposes of submission of returns; and once it is submitted, any changes thereto may have cascading effect – HELD assessee cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of his returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR3B, which inevitably would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders, because of the cascading effect in their electronic records.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 20, 38, 39 and 43D(5) – Bail – Association with terrorist organisation – – The proviso imposes embargo on grant of bail to the accused against whom any of the offences under Chapter IV and VI have been alleged. The embargo will apply when after perusing charge sheet, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Thus, if after perusing the charge sheet, if the Court is unable to draw such a prima facie conclusion, the embargo created by the proviso will not apply.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THWAHA FASAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Succession Act, 1925 – Section 70 – Revocation of unprivileged Will – In view of Section 70, revocation can be made only by following modes: (a) By Execution of another Will or codicil. (b) A writing executed by the testator declaring an intention to revoke the Will and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is required to be executed. (c) By burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BADRILAL — Appellant Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6524…
Security Cheque – Dishonour – A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. HELD the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…
ADVOCATE SENIOR GOWN – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 32 and 142 – Making allegations of impropriety against the Institution of the High Court – Withdrawal of Senior Gown – Contempt of Court – This Court views of the High Court but still endeavour to give one more and last chance to the petitioner – In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner – Ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of the petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YATIN NARENDRA OZA — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 15 and 16(1) – Cultivating tenants, right to first purchase the land leased to him – Surrender of tenancy – Notice – Requirement of notice for the prescribed period of three months, to the landlord, and the concerned revenue official is mandatory – This provision, in the form of a procedure enacted for the welfare and protection of a tenant (like the appellant) has to be construed in its literal and plain terms
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…
Motor Accident – Permanent disability – Loss of Earning Capacity – – Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned – Loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.27,67,800 – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITHENDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…