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.

Cr P C – Principle underlying s 186 can be applied at the pre-charge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate – In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMISH DEVGAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Admission in Medical Colleges – Illegal denial of admission – Respondent No.2-College adopted unfair means to deprive Respondent No.1 admission to PG course. Respondent No.1 has lost one precious academic year for no fault of hers for which she has to be compensated by way of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to be paid by Respondent No.2

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION — Appellant Vs. MOTHUKURU SRIYAH KOUMUDI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Motor Vehicle – Accident – Death – authoritative pronouncement of this Court in National Insurance Co Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled to an increase of 40% towards annual dependency on account of ‘future prospects’ given the undisputed age of the deceased – Non examination of witness -Courts should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. – 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…

Foundation ceremony of Central Vista project -we clarify that the authorities would be free to continue with procedural processes without altering the status of the site(s) in question in any manner, including to continue with the scheduled progmramme of foundation stone-laying on 10th December, 2020.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJEEV SURI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

(NDPS) – Ss 8(c) and 20(b) – Recovery of 6.300 kilogram ganja – Quantum of sentence – When the quantity/Ganja recovered from the appellant was 6.300 kilogram, which is between small quantity and commercial quantity HELD to the extent of imposing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment in place of ten years rigorous imprisonment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ISSAK NABAB SHAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned Incharge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAYANT ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be made the basis of further appointment and erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. (See : Union of India and Another vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 422)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Service Matters

Time bound promotional scale – Claim of the appellants of discrimination and arbitrariness on the basis of time bound promotional scale granted to juniors is not found to be sustainable – Appellants are not entitled to time bound promotional scale on the basis of parity in the other cases

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

You missed