![[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)
(CPC) – S 92 – A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue. While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE JAMIA MASJID — Appellant Vs. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
(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. )…
Insurance claim – Temporary registration of the vehicle expired – On the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324. entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy – Insurance claim denied.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR GODARA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela.…
HELD converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. In the order impugned in these petitions, the High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud – Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika (2021) SCC Online SC 315 case principles – High Court was perfectly justified in granting interim protection
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…
Once the “Operational Creditor” has filed an application which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of IBC, if a notice has been received by “Operational Creditor” or if there is a record of dispute in the information utility
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
A and C Act, 1996 – S 11(6) – Appointment of sole arbitrator – HELD Parties have neither denied that there is no ‘arbitrable dispute’ between them nor have they challenged the existence of the arbitration clause(s) in the Construction Management Service Agreements – Considering that the primary twin-test envisioned under Section 11(6) of the Act has been satisfied by the Petitioner – Nature of disputes that have arisen between the parties, thus, can be adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAJAPURA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, JJ.…
(NDPS) – Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29, 37(1)(b), 37(1)(b)(ii), 42 and 67 – Cancellation of bail -A finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – A confessional statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will not be admissible in evidence – Contention that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with is prima facie misplaced
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW — Appellant Vs. MD. NAWAZ KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
HELD Our answer with respect to the first prayer in Miscellaneous Application No. 1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated 27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however, calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…
HELD direct the respondent(s) to give effect to the judgment of the High Court dated 04.11.2011 which had affirmed the order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2010 by recalling orders of reversion, if any, and extending monetary benefits to the appellants herein and thereafter, to consider their cases under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) if they have so applied and if their applications are in order. No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MEDINI. C AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
IPC Section 302/34 – no contra evidence on behalf of the defence to explain as to why they all went together to the spot with fire-arms and shot at the deceased – On the other hand, the antecedent enmity between the accused and the victims as narrated in detail by PW-1 clearly brings out the fact that there existed a common intention on the part of the accused inasmuch as they went together armed with guns in broad day light to the land where the victims were engaged in irrigation – Also the manner in which the crime was executed clearly establishes a concerted action on part of the accused – Conviction under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC uphold – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDRAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…