![[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)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25F – Termination – Claim benefit under Section 25F- Nature of service rendered by the appellants as daily wager for a short period, while upholding the termination of the appellants being in violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947 – It just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the appellants-workmen in full and final satisfaction of the dispute in lieu of right to claim reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Tribunal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.V. ANIL MITHRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Grant of licence to set up a group housing colony – – Principle of First Come First Serve basis adopted in grant of licences is not a valid consideration, the only consequence available was to cancel such licence which have been granted based on the socalled alleged practice which is unsustainable in law and in our considered view no error was committed in passing the order of cancellation of grant of licence to the Appellants under the judgment impugned – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANT RAJ LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…
Specific performance of Agreement – Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant – executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously. HELD Section 10(a) and now the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. As such the question whether the said provision would be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept open. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, the same can be a guide.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGHAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appeal against – Observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – On the ground of delay in lodging FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr P C
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about 900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide and victimization – By such transfer, their status as “workman” would be changed to that of “supervisor” – By such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they will be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226 – Allotment of quarters – Ex-employees of Mills – Right to equality – No justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
Military Engineering Service (Non-Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1971 – Seniority – Determination of – In the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Service Law – Respondent is a club in strict sense and not public, ‘restaurant and eating place’ the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the respondent club cannot be characterized as premises which was ‘wholly or principally’ used for the business of supply of meals and refreshment to the public. In the first place as already noticed, the members of the Club and their guests and family members cannot be described as the ‘public’ . HELD There is no finding also that the club was providing lodging. In such circumstances, the question that should have been asked was, whether, being a club, which was not residential in nature, it stood exempted. This was not done. Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.B. NAYAK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHILAI STEEL PLANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri…
Perusal of clause 17 of the 1992 deed would reveal that the partners have right to expel an erring partner/partners on the grounds specified therein. The 1995 Deed does not have any conflicting provision. The clauses in the 1992 Deed, which are not superseded by the 1995 Deed, would still continue to operate. The trial court has given sound reasons, while upholding the expulsion of the plaintiffs. We see no reason to interfere with the same, the appeal is partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. ANANTHA RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. T.M. NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Civil contempt – Guilty of willful disobedience of order in respect to the levy made-Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge – When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element – It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…