Latest Post

[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. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [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. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.

Market value – Determination – Rate of price escalation – for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. )…

Apponitment of arbitrator – whether the dispute which had arisen at the first instance has been settled; if the dispute subsisted, whether the claim is within the period of limitation, the nature of relief if any and all other contention on merits are to be considered in the arbitral proceedings – Hence, keeping open all contentions on merits, sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. B.L. RATHNAMMA — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment to post of Junior Engineer/(Electrical)-Respondent HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SHARMA AND OTHERS ETC — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364-A, 376, 216 read with Section 120-B – Kidnapping Rape and Murder – Circumstancial evidence – Post-mortem report discloses that victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim – Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1306,…

(IPC) – Sections 224, 302 and 511 – Murder of Police Constable and Attempt to Escape from Custody – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Accused was arrested for offences punishable under Sections 51 r/w 63, 52 A r/w 68-A and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 -it was for the accused to explain under what circumstances the deceased was dead – Accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation in this regard – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHANMUGAM — Appellant Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta,…

Third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act will now be read without the word “even” and the words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal” – Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) — Respondent ( Before…

Appointment of arbitrator – Section 11 court would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable, or when facts are contested – The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJIV PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. SEEMA KUKREJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

You missed