![[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)
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – When application for grant of pension is already rejected, such rejection order has become final, it is not open to make a claim for second time for pension again by way of fresh application.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. A. ALAGAM PERUMAL KONE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art 14, 16 & 21 – Pension Scheme – Retired employees – Whenever such new benefit is extended for the existing employees, retired employees cannot seek such benefit, merely on the ground that they too were the former employees of the Corporation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED EMPLOYEES UNION — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.…
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(2)(vi) – Family settlement – Non-registration of decree – A case where decree was based on an admission recognising pre-existing rights under family arrangement – Decree did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAWAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…
Banks as service providers under the earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as well as the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019, owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safety deposit systems –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMITABHA DASGUPTA — Appellant Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ. )…
Education Law – Affiliation for conducting MBBS and post graduate courses- In case of non-compliance, the order passed by the ASC for withdrawal of the affiliation would continue – Not find anything wrong in the letter whereby KUHS has rejected KMC’s application for continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 as it is a necessary sequitur and consequence of the two orders passed by this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALITHA R NATH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna,…
Motor Transport – Selection process is mandated due to the posts of Head Constable Motor Transport being highly technical – Rules are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary – Constable Drivers can be promoted on the basis of seniority to Head Constable Drivers – If they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport, then they have to go through selection process –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Delivery of old car – Liability of manufacturer – Unless the manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable, given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, were on principal-to-principal basis.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TATA MOTORS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANTONIO PAULO VAZ AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra…
Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANMOL KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Indira…
Sexual harassment against Ex. Chief Justice of India – Not able obtain various records including electronic records of Whatsapp, Telegram etc. – the proceedings are accordingly closed and the Suo Motu petition is disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE TOUCHING UPON THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY- MENTIONED BY SHRI TUSHAR MEHTA, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (…
U L (Ceiling & Reg) Repeal Act, 1999 – Ss 3(1)(a) and S 3(2) – Ownership and possession -There is nothing on record, that conclusively establishes possession of the suit property either by the Competent Authority or the Appellant herein. Given the conflicting averments made by the parties, this is a pure question of fact – Matter to be remitted to the D B of the Karnataka High Court to consider the case afresh.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.A. BASHEER THROUGH G.P.A. HOLDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran,…