![[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)
Plaintiff was pursuing writ petition bona fidely–If the period taken for pursuing the remedy is excluded, the suit must be held to have been filed within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act–Interest on Delayed payments to small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, S 4–Limitation Act, 1963, S 14.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 771 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7315 of 2008…
Mere amendment in property cards of City Survey Office mutating names of petitioners does not create title–Nothing on record to show delivery of possession to them by receiver–Acquisition proceedings, held, not bad for want of notice–Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1996, Sections 83(3) and 86(2).
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 751 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 6712 of 2008…
Compassionate Appointment–Death not claimed to be due to accident–Settlement providing that the death of the bread earner should have occurred `due to an accident arising out of and in course of employment’, as in this case, the employee had not died due to an accident–His dependents not entitled to appointment.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 751 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 6159 of 2008…
Civil Contempt – Contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court – It has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful” HELD not open to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction, which course could be adopted only in review jurisdiction and not contempt proceedings.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. G. PATTANAIK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Contempt Petition…
VINOD DUA vs UOI – A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder. HELD FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD DUA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Writ…
IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC HELD The complete data on the Central Government’s purchase history of all the COVID-19 vaccines till date (Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik V). The data should clarify: (a) the dates of all procurement orders placed by the Central Government for all 3 vaccines; (b) the quantity of vaccines ordered as on each date; and (c) the projected date of supply; and An outline for how and when the Central Government seeks to vaccinate the remaining population in phases 1, 2 and 3. The steps being taken by the Central Government to ensure drug availability for mucormycosis.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat,…
Dowry death – Death due to poisoning- Offences under Section 498-A and Section 304-B, IPC are distinct in nature – Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and must be proved separately by the prosecution – If a case is made out, there can be a conviction under both the sections.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GURMEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…
Dowry death – The essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence. Prosecution failed to establish the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below convicting the appellants under Section 306, IPC merits interference . law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be summarized
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., and Aniruddha Bose, J. ) Criminal…
HELD extraordinary circumstances, when a strict case for grant of anticipatory bail is not made out, and rather the investigating authority has made out a case for custodial investigation, it cannot be stated that the High Court has no power to ensure justice proviso which necessitates the Court pass such an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest duration period of 90 days, or three months, cannot be considered reasonable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATHU SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose,…
(CrPC) – Section 31(1) – Kidnapping and rape – Multiple punishments of imprisonment – Whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively? – Held, It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha…