![[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)
Arbitral Award – Modification of – No power of modification of an award exists in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 – Hence, if one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS NO.45 E AND 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M. HAKEEM AND ANOTHER — Respondent (…
(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Once Plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) there is no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAYYED AYAZ ALI — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH G. GOYAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…
India cannot have two parallel legal systems, “one for the rich and the resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice.” The existence of a dual legal system will only chip away the legitimacy of the law. – Order of High Court shall stand set aside – Bail cancelled
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMESH CHAURASIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Subsequent Purchaser of Flat – Relief of interest on refund HELD The equities, in the opinion of this court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of the principal amounts, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer, or acknowledged it.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S LAUREATE BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHARANJEET SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
AGR dues – In prior order while disposing of the Case, this Court reiterated that no telecom operator shall raise any dispute in respect of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications pertaining to AGR dues – There is no scope for any recalculation/re-computation of AGR dues – Applications dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…
Unlawful assembly “to snatch the voters list and to cast bogus voting” – Essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice – Any attempt of booth capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy – Nobody can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKSHMAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…
S E B I Act, 1992 – Ss 24(1) & 24A – Compounding of offence – SEBI’s consent cannot be mandatory before SAT or the Court before which the proceeding is pending, for exercising the power of compounding under Section 24A- offences which lie outside the IPC, compounding may be permitted only if the statute which creates the offence contains an express provision for compounding before such an offence can be made compoundable – Power of compounding must, in other words, be expressly conferred by the statute which creates the offence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah,…
(CrPC) – Section 197 – Protection of Sanction – HELD to find out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” , the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…
A consideration of the matter in the conspectus of the aforesaid pleas leads to a conclusion that it cannot be said that a concluded contract had been arrived at inter se the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. S. KUMAR’S ASSOCIATES AKM (JV) — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…
Fraud and misappropriation of funds – Power under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even before he takes cognizance provided the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence – he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…