![[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)
It is settled law that a secured creditor stands outside the winding up and can realise its security dehors winding up proceedings.-Winding up proceedings – A petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R.…
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Section 3(1)(b) – Property Tax – Exemption – Buildings owned by educational institutions for providing hostel accommodation to students and for the Religious purposes are qualify for exemption under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
W B Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947- To then say that the urgency provision could be invoked on account of the Single Judge’s order dated 22.06.2000, is to attempt to infer from the said order, much more than it actually said – Therefore, the Division Bench rightly held that at best this order could possibly refer to the acquisition proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman…
(CPC) – S 96 – Appeal for original decree – Appellants were not a party to the Consent Orders – It was not open for the Court to examine the legal effect of the Consent Orders to which the appellants were not a party.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CHITRALEKHA BUILDERS AND ANOTHER THROUGH ANIL G. SHAH POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HUSBAND OF THE PARTNER — Appellant Vs. G.I.C. EMPLOYEES SONAL VIHAR…
Constitution – Art 226 – (CrPC) – S 482 – Inherent jurisdiction – Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Necessary Ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 (IPC) are as follows: (i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and (ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCHANA RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Murder – Merely because the weapon is not seized cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when his presence and his active participation and using firearm by him has been established and proved – Conviction upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHIRENDRA SINGH @ PAPPU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ.…
Ossification Test Conducted On An Accused Aged Around 40-55 Years Cannot Be Conclusive To Declare Him As A Juvenile On The Date Of The Incident
Since there is a document signed by the appellant much before the date of occurrence, therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant 7 (2020) 7 SCC 1 cannot…
Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the problems faced by migrant labourers “who have been stranded in different parts of the country.” The Court had issued notice to the Centre and all states and union territories, directing them to submit their responses to tackle this “urgent” situation.
[COVID-19 Migrant Crisis] 90% of migrants already transported, argues SG Tushar Mehta; Supreme Court reserves order for June 9 Debayan Roy Jun 5, 2020, 4:01 PM IST The Supreme Court today…
Principle of `equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis HELD that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (-at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 213 Of 2013. D/d. 26.10.2016. State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants Versus Jagjit Singh…