![[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)
Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work – Regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties – Impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER — Appellant Vs. COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 16, 18(2)(e) and 19(25) – Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Held, NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. ANKITA SINHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar,…
Indian Succession Act S 63 & Indian Evidence Act S 68 have been duly complied with in proving Exhibit P4 (Will). HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. PRABHAKARA — Appellant Vs. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Service Law – HELD Firstly, the first appellant found that the respondent is not suitable for re-appointment, which was approved by the other authorities. Therefore, the employer has taken a conscious decision in the interest of the society. Secondly, it is not a case of extension in which case maybe the confirmation by “ACC” would have been warranted. We may also note that all the appellants, including the Hon’ble Minister, have approved the subsequent decision to go for a fresh recruitment by taking note of the larger public interest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N MURUGESAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Government houses/flats are meant for serving Government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri Migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension – Classification made in favour of Government employees who were Kashmiri Migrants stands on the same footing as that of other Government employees or public figures – There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for indefinite long period.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. AMBIKA MURALI — Appellant Vs. TMT. VALLIAMMAL AND ANOTHER AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
HELD the grievance of the respondent is not sustainable for the reason that the post of Assistant Public prosecutor is included in the Schedule appended to the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the 1979 Rules’) which was published in the extraordinary Gazette on 27.07.1979 and in terms of Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules. Appeal Allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL JAISWAL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Kerala Forest Act, 1961 – Section 27 – Illegal possession of sandalwood oil -HELD in holding that the presumption that the seizure of forest produce belonging to the State, automatically can result in a presumption of culpable mental state of the accused- in other words, that seizure of the goods ipso facto meant that the appellant had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin, or that the accused’s inability to account for a transit pass, implied that they procured the goods illegally, thus attracting Section 27 – given that the appellants had furnished a series of documents explaining how they had sourced the oil in question – State’s absence of diligence in producing those materials (which were in its possession) and proving that they were without credibility, cannot result in a conviction – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARATH BOOSHAN AGGARWAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment -HELD It is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity – A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. METHU MEDA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…