![[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)
Stay of Dismantling of INS Viraat -According to the surveyors, the vessel is in ‘grounded condition’ and can be called a dead structure – This Court cannot do anything at this stage and in these circumstances – Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ENVITECH MARINE CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI,…
Drunken driving – Breath analyzer test or blood test is not mandatory for an insurer to deny an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving – Presence of alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood is not an indispensable requirement to enable an Insurer to successfully invoke the clause – What is required to be proved is driving by a person under the influence of the alcohol –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PEARL BEVERAGES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and K.M.…
Private Vehicle Is Not A “Public Place” As Explained In Section 43 NDPS Act
The Supreme Court observed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.…
Conspiracy to Destabilize Judiciary – Phone call conspiracy against the High Court Chief Justice and a senior sitting Judge of the Supreme Court – Investigation- Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in audio tape – Direction by the High Court calling for report from Justice R.V. Raveendran need not be allowed to continue – Order accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 258 – Cheque Bouncing Cases – Power to Stop Proceedings – Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act. B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Expeditious Trial – Directions
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S.…
A suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches – Escalation of prices cannot be the sole ground to deny specific performance -However, an exception to this rule is where an immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is not found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the stipulated time.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A.R. MADANA GOPAL ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMNATH PUBLICATIONS PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 -Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. Not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization. Not agree with the prosecution that the amount is terror fund. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amount seized from the Appellant is proceeds from terrorist activity. There is no allegation that Appellant was receiving any money. On the other hand, the Appellant is accused of providing money to the members of organisation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDESH KEDIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Lapse of period – Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. PARDEN ORAON — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
Tender Call Notice-A reading of Section 4 would show that the registration of an establishment under the Orissa Act is to categorise the establishment as a shop, commercial establishment, hotel, etc. and not for the purpose of issuing a labour licence which, in the context of the present Tender Call Notice, can only be a labour licence under the Contract Labour Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UTKAL SUPPLIERS — Appellant Vs. M/S MAA KANAK DURGA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai,…
Constitution of India-But the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e). Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V.…