![[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)
IBC – Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by a Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC is the occurrence of a default by the Corporate Debtor – Definition of ‘Financial Debt’ in Section 5(8) of IBC does not expressly exclude an interest free loan – ‘Financial Debt’ would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ORATOR MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SAMTEX DESINZ PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…
Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 – Rule 16 – Promotion to post of Sub-Inspectors of Police – A candidate who fails to obtain minimum of 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Daily wagers who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999 shall be regularized as regular employees with effect from 01.01.2000 and shall be placed in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the university subject to certain terms and conditions
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VICE CHANCELLOR ANAND AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY — Appellant Vs. KANUBHAI NANUBHAI VAGHELA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…
No inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence – In the nature of the assault, Section 304 Part II, IPC has no application – Acquittal is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside – Conviction by Trial Court is restored. – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRUTHIVIRAJ JAYANTIBHAI VANOL — Appellant Vs. DINESH DAYABHAI VALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…
Caste Certificate Rules – High Court grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it – Furthermore, the appellant was not seeking the reserved status for the purpose of education or employment
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Civil…
Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments HELD Determination of Seniority – Services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior to their regularisation as per the 1979 Rules shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-vis, the direct recruits who were appointed prior to 1989 and they are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1985.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bogus donation – Cancellation of Trust Registration – HELD Donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash – The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…
Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 6 and 7 – Suit for eviction – Maintainability before Wakf Tribunal – Suit is maintainable if the tenant proves the said property is not a Wakf property.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TELANGANA STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAMED MUZAFAR — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – If the accused fails to offer any plausible explanation, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused – HELD the Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed from the point of the deceased being so last seen in the presence of the accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose,…
Insecticides Act, 1968 – Ss 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 – (CrPC) – Ss 200 & 202 – Misbranding HELD Proviso to Sec 200 of Cr PC, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty – Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Cr PC, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – Cr PC itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash…