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.

Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court – Nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KIRAN DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and…

Recovery of huge quantity (3332 kgs.) of ‘Ganja’ (cannabis) carried on truck – Appellant was helper of truck – He was only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and first time offender – Nothing was recovered from his custody – appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SAMPAT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Insolvency Process – Reference to arbitration – Where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses – It is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused had a common object, as such the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC etc.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

You missed