![[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)
Appeal under Section 61 IBC – Limitation Period – Litigant has to file its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause and Limitation period starts from date of pronouncement of order
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V NAGARAJAN — Appellant Vs. SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…
Murder – Organized crime – High Court quashed charge sheet against accused for KCOCA offences – Appeal against – High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 24(2) and more so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized crime committed by the members of organized crime syndicate including the writ petitioner
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KAVITHA LANKESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Procedure adopted by the High Court disposing writ petition by permitting / allowing the original writ applicant to modify its offer and that too in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is unsustainable and unknown to law -HELD Once the writ of mandamus was issued, instead of disposing of the writ petition, the High Court ought to have allowed the writ petition – Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in as such no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court on merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAIBHAVI ENTERPRISE — Appellant Vs. NOBEL CERA COAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – If anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM SHANKAR PRASAD — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Prisons Act, 1894 – Section 59 – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 – Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) – Rape Case – Prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment – Furlough Leave – Appeal against – Jail Superintendent has given a negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone inside the jail illegally and attempted to make contacts with the outside world – Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity – Order of High Court directed the release of respondent on furlough set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI — Respondent ( Before :…
Criminal Proceedings Should Not Become Weapons Of Harassment HELD Civil Dispute Given Colour Of Criminal Offence
There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any…
HELD that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement is directory. It may be stated herein that the provisions of Order 8 Rule of CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6304 OF 2021 (@ SLP(C) No.13129/2018) SHORAJ SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHARAN SINGH RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of – Murder – Order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations – Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court – Impugned judgments of High Court granting anticipatory bail to second respondents in these appeals – are set aside – Appeals allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 223 and 223(a) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 217, 218, 120B, 306, 328, 363A, 366 and 376 – Non-joinder of trials – Joint trial – Re-trial – Miscarriage of justice- A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as the case may be. Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NASIB SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V.…
Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Mere fact that a suit is pending before the High Court challenging the validity of the compromise deed would furnish no cogent basis to quash the proceedings under Section 138 – Once the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fulfilled, the statute clearly stipulates that “such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence” -Question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial . serious error ofSingle Judge in allowing the petition under Section 482 to quash
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANOJ GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…