![[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)
Respondent could not be treated to be part of Category ‘C’ from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.8.1985 as he was neither a graduate nor a trained teacher when he was appointed. Also, Respondent was not even a trained teacher on the date of his appointment and thus cannot claim seniority on such ground from the date of his initial appointment – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADHAVI — Appellant Vs. CHAGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 8(3) – Disqualification- petitioner was disqualified from contesting the elections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, she could not have maintained an election petition as “a candidate at such election” in terms of Section 81(1). Therefore, the High Court was right in not venturing into an exercise in futility, by taking up the election petition for trial, though the High Court was wrong in rejecting the election petition on the ground of existence of incurable of defects – Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARITHA S. NAIR — Appellant Vs. HIBI EDEN — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special…
Possession of Indian Flap Shell Turtle — the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. )…
Prior environmental clearance – It is not necessary for the Central Government or for that matter, NHAI, to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions, as the case may be, at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the Project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT — Appellant Vs. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…
Temporary custody of son – Mother shall be allowed every year, one more trip for a week financed by the father, coinciding with the Birthday of son (which falls on 2nd of December) – Thus, the Mother will have the benefit of two trips to Kenya in a year, out of which one will be with her mother as well.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA — Appellant Vs. PERRY KANSAGRA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Miscellaneous…
Every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto the thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan- transfer was executed way before the cutoff date stipulated under Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer…
Construction of Elevated Corridor (Flyover) – Rejection of bid on ground that bidder suppressed information required under paragraph 13 of Appendix IA – State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to issue a LOI as soon as is practically possible to “R” insofar as the present tender is concerned at the same financial bid as that of UPSBC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali…
Rash and negligent driving by driver – Enhancement of compensation – Future prospects – – the claimants are entitled to an increase of 40% towards annual dependency on account of ‘future prospects’ given the undisputed age of the deceased – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANITA SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aniruddha…
Convenience note – Presentation made by learned Standing Counsel for the State in the Convenience Note extracted is an illustration how a case can be presented on behalf of the State – This Court may suggest that Convenience Note may be taken as the Standard Format by all the learned counsel appearing for various State Governments in this Court – Registry may circulate copies of this Order to all the learned Standing Counsel for the States.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KAUSHAL VERMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Allocation of employees – Power sector undertakings in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh – One-Man Committee having completed the process of allocation, the allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before any forum.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO) — Appellant Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R.…