![[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)
IN RE VIOLENCE IN LAKHIMPUR KHERI (UP) LEADING TO LOSS OF LIFE
1 ITEM NO.17 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PILW S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF…
HELD upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional – High Court has correct in opinion that 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Recruitment of teachers in primary schools across the state of Jammu and Kashmir) scheme and cut-off date was not eligible for appointment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHAHEENA MASARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
IMP : When a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed – Defendant cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree – Orders passed by the High Court set aside and dismiss the application preferred by defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code – Appeal allowed. Counsel for Appearing Parties
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHWABANDHU — Appellant Vs. SRI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25L and 25N – Termination – Held, Irrigation Department of state will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L – Labour Court as well the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court have not adverted to the question whether the Irrigation Department of the state is an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L – There is no finding recorded that the Irrigation Department of the state is doing manufacturing activity as provided in sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act – Termination of the employment of the respondent was legal and valid – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SOMDUTT SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Dismissal – Allegation of drunkenness – Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously exercised – Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so – Award passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court under impugned judgment is not sustainable in law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK — Appellant Vs. R.C. SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…
Held, In the absence of the recommendations made by the review selection committee pursuant to which the appointments were made by notifications, being challenged, there was no justification for the High Court to pass such omnibus directions more particularly when the officer on whose insistence the writ petition was filed, stood retired from service in November 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation – Impugned order passed by High Court is unsustainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST — Appellant Vs. TRILOK S. BHANDARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Enhancement of compensation – Determination of market value – Held, Land acquired for the housing project – However, at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 1/2 cent only – In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNUSAMY — Appellant Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 398…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 and 142 – Scandalising of court – Contempt proceedings – The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURAZ INDIA TRUST — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application…
HELD (CrPC) – Sections 320 and 482 – Where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI and Surya Kant, JJ. )…