![[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)
Acquisition proceedings – Enhancement of compensation – Non adequate Compensation – Appellant is entitled for compensation for 2 hectares of land in reference to which compensation has not been awarded under the impugned judgment at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/ per hectare along with statutory entitlement to the claimant/appellant as referred to by the High Court in para (viii) till realization under the impugned judgment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR — Appellant Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…
Second Appeal – Power of High Court to determine issues of fact – If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice – It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC. However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.N. NAGARAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. H. NARASIMHA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25, 25(a) and 25(f) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Principal Special Director in Enforcement Directorate – Extension of tenure – Section 25(f) of the CVC Act has to be read as the tenure of office of the Director of Enforcement is for a minimum period of two years – There is no proscription on the Government to appoint a Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…
Civil Law – Suit for Permanent injunction – Suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAYALULLA PARAMBATH MOIDU HAJI — Appellant Vs. NAMBOODIYIL VINODAN — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Medical negligence – Where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent – Indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. HARISH KUMAR KHURANA — Appellant Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
IMP : Suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property – High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…
Title Suit – Dismissal of – Plaintiffs were not owners of the property on the date they had filed the present suit for title and possession on 5th August,1967 – Trial court dismissing the suit is correct.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAKESH BHUSHAN PRASAD ALIAS RAMESH PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…
Murder – Cancellation of bail – Giving threats to the complainant side and the other witnesses and the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be said to be a very serious offence – Therefore, the aforesaid conduct ought not to have been taken by the High Court very lightly – High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Consumer fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property – It is not a case of the deficiency in service as contemplated by Consumer Act but definitely a case of exercise of jurisdiction in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Direct the Chandigarh Administration to decide the claim of conversion as on the date when consumer complaints were filed – Such action shall be taken within 3 months.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Service Law – Manipulated appointment – Fraudulent selection process – Fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law – Workmen here, having hoodwinked the Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner, must be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their illgotten advantage
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BHALGORA AREA (NOW KUSTORE AREA) OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED…