![[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)
(IPC) – S 302 and 120B – (CrPC) – Section 439 – Cancellation of Bail – Conspiracy – Murder – Tampering with evidence – Deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau – Mobile phone of the wife of the deceased was seized and it showed that she had been in constant touch with the First respondent-accused after the death of her husband – First respondent himself being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted – surmise that the police had “developed a case” that Ketamine was administered, after four months of the incident – Conclusion that the High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI MAHADEV MEENA — Appellant Vs. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Service matter – High Court was not justified and had fallen into error. This is for the reason that the information furnished under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable. In the re-select list, the name of the respondent is shown at Serial No. 474 having obtained 109.86 marks.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ARATI MOHAPATRA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Copyright Rules, 2013 – Rule 29(4) – An exercise of judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted, particularly at the interlocutory stage – High Court was also of the view that the second proviso may be resorted to as a matter of routine, instead of as an exception and that the ex post facto reporting should be enlarged to a period of fifteen days (instead of a period of twenty four hours). Such an exercise was impermissible since it would substitute a statutory rule made in exercise of the power of delegated legislation with a new regime and provision which the High Court considers more practicable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEXT RADIO LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna, JJ.…
Reinstatement – Misconduct – Assaulting senior official – Aims and object of the appellant and the serious nature of misconduct proved against the respondent, instead of granting reinstatement, by balancing the conflicting interests, appropriate compensation needs to be awarded – Moreover, considering the nature of the misconduct proved against the respondent, the grant of reinstatement will not be in the interest of justice – Long gap of 17 years will be also one of the considerations for not granting reinstatement
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL GANDHI MUSEUM — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…
Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 – Section 3(1), 6B(1) and 5A Held, While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies – Issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S MAGADH SUGAR AND ENERGY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…
(SARFAESI) – Sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4), 14 and 35 – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rules 8 and 9 – HELD Since the sale scheduled on 27.2.2012, as per the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012, could not be held due to the reasons attributable solely to the guarantors, there was no necessity of again following the same procedure of providing a 30 days’ clear notice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. KARTHIK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…
Dishonour of cheque – Gravity of complaint under N.I. Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or other criminal offences – If an enhanced fine is imposed it would meet the ends of justice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TRIYAMBAK S. HEGDE — Appellant Vs. SRIPAD — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Land Acquisition – As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had taken place – Appeal are partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
S L P – HELD There is a delay of approximately six years in preferring the special leave petition – No sufficient cause has been shown explaining the huge delay of six years – It is required to be noted that after the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 28.12 Per Square Yard, in fact, the respondents accepted the judgment. Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
HELD 1) The construction of the toll plaza at 194 kilometre was not illegal or arbitrary; (2) The direction by the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be upheld and it is liable to be set aside; (3) The appellants will look at the barricades (closing of service roads) in regard to the toll plaza and permit such barricades only as are permitted in Rule 17 of the Rules. Any unauthorised barricades will be removed without any delay and at any rate within 2 weeks from today.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHUKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…