![[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)
SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – If a tenant claims that he is entitled to possession of a Secured Asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument – HELD even if the tenancy has been claimed to be renewed in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, the Borrower would be required to seek consent of the secured creditor for transfer of the Secured Asset by way of sale, lease or otherwise, after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and, admittedly, no such consent has been sought by the Borrower in the present case – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN — Appellant Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Appointment of appellant can only be construed as irregular and not illegal – Appellant is held entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits – Appeal allowed. Finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in respect of nature of the appointment of the appellant being illegal is thus not liable to be sustained – Her rejection of the claim for regularization on the ground of her appointment being illegal by the impugned order is patently erroneous.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELIMA SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Claim for compensation – A statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury- HELD Compensation under the head pain and suffering being personal injuries is held to be unsustainable and is disallowed –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH KAHLON (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NARINDER KAHLON GOSAKAN AND ANOTHER —…
Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations – the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. HELD the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2021 Kaptan Singh …Appellant Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and others …Respondents J U…
2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not retrospective HELD the payment of gratuity from a specified date of retirement was held to be not unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA GOPAL TIWARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Suit for redemption – Limitation – Suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption.- Advance of loan and return thereof are part of the same document which creates a relationship of debtor and creditor – Thus, it would be covered by proviso in Section 58(c) of the Act – Order of First Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the defendants and dismissing the suit for redemption is not sustainable in law, so as the order passed by the High Court – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. NANA DINKAR YADAV (TANPURA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S.…
Determination of seniority – High Court by which it was resolved that the merit of candidates in LCE would not be relevant for altering inter se seniority in the feeder cadre – Seniority of the Petitioners which has been determined prior to the 2017 Rules cannot be disturbed – Petitioners will not be adversely affected by Rule 11 (4) (b) of the 2017 Rules which alters the criteria for determination of seniority from merit to inter se seniority in the lower cadre – Resolution set aside – Petition allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha…
There can be no rational for NCTE or its Regional Committee to deny the recognition from the Academic Year 2021-2022 and insist on recognition for Academic Session 2022-2023 – Petition Allowed – The petitioners would be entitled to admit the students for Academic Session 2021-2022 as per the sanction granted by NCTE for the Academic Session 2022-2023
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVENDRA PATHAK SARVODAYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43B Explanation 3C – Explanation 3C, which was introduced for the “removal of doubts” , only made it clear that interest that remained unpaid and has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-III — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971- High Court without taking note of these aspects of the matter has wrongly invoked the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, when in the instant facts there is neither express nor implied bar under any law – On the other hand, the learned Munsif was justified in passing the order holding the suit to be maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATUL MAHANTA — Appellant Vs. NIRMALENDU SAHA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4627 of…