![[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)
CPC- In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL S SHAH — Appellant Vs. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., L. Nageswara Rao and S.…
A and C Act, 1996 – S 31(7) – Interest on delayed payment – Only difference between the situation contemplated in the provision and the facts of this case is that the agreement involved is not silent on interest entitlement of the appellants on delayed payment but the agreement contains provision for such payment – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…
(IPC) – Ss 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506(2) and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Ss 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 – (CrPC) – S 439 – Five Murders – Land Dispute – High Court Grants Bail Duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD — Appellant Vs. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 224A – Ad hoc Judges Appointment – Recourse to Article 224A is not an alternative to regular appointments. – Ad hoc Judges to deal with the unprecedented situation arising from the backlog of cases pending in the High Courts –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…
Arbitration Law – Whether two companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India, Held, Nothing stands in the way of party autonomy in designating a seat of arbitration outside India even when both parties happen to be Indian nationals.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PASL WIND SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GE POWER CONVERSION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai…
Appointment of ad hoc Judges – High Courts are in a crisis situation – i. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks ii. It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks iii. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. PLR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul…
According to the learned counsel for the co-accused, they are also aged and that they are also suffering from ill health – Therefore, they contend that a transfer from Darjeeling to New Delhi will make their life miserable – If the petitioner is entitled to a fair trial, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also equally entitled to a fair trial – Transfer dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH DEVENDRA KUMAR SAXENA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition…
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS -The courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing – This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge – In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who would be asked to produce documents, etc) and experts
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS —…
H P G S T Rules, 2017 – Rule 159(5) – Provisional attachment – Under the provisions of Rule 159(5), the person whose property is attached is entitled to dual procedural safeguards: (a) An entitlement to submit objections on the ground that the property was or is not liable to attachment; and (b) An opportunity of being heard;
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah,…
High Court misdirected itself in finding support for conviction on such unclinching evidence – The innocence of the appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused-Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – As the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused by virtue of Section 106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…