![[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)
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder of wife on suspicion of her infidelity – Sentence of imprisonment for life – Question of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing life sentence – Matter settled in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 454 held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ALFAZ ALI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) SLP…
Compassionate Appointment – Therefore, even if it is assumed that the ‘divorced daughter’ may fall in the same class of ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the ‘divorced daughter’ as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee – Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. V. SOMYASHREE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60(5) – Submitted Resolution Plan – Modification or withdrawal of – Existing insolvency framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, once the plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Repeated filing of cases against husband – Repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty – Decree of divorce passed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIVASANKARAN — Appellant Vs. SANTHIMEENAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021…
Refund of unutilised input tax credit – Refund is a statutory right and the extension of the benefit of refund only to the unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies by excluding unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services is a valid classification and a valid exercise of legislative power.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VKC FOOTSTEPS INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and MR…
e their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed – It is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SY. AZHAR SY. KALANDAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of value of acquired land -Held, Deduction at the rate of 15% towards the development charges, it also does not call for any interference of this Court considering the fact that the land in question at the relevant time was an agricultural land. However, taking into consideration the fact that the sale instance relied upon was a quite big chunk of land and the location of the acquired land and the land was acquired for spinning mill, the High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE COTTON SPINNING MILL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Labour Court Award – Jurisdiction – Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court -Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it – No error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 75 81, 34 and 34(2)(b) – Setting aside of arbitral award – Disturbing tendency of courts – Disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award – Every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…
Whether proportionate disallowance of interest paid by the banks is called for under Section 14A of Income Tax Act- Proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…