![[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)
The precise time at which the notification was uploaded on the e-Gazette was 20:46:58 hours – Since the importers, who had imported goods from Pakistan, had presented their bills of entry and completed the process of “self assessment” before the notification enhancing the rate of duty to 200 per cent was issued and uploaded, the enhanced rate of duty was not attracted – Importers were liable to pay the duty applicable at the time when the bills of entry for home consumption were filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Wherein the circumstances when requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution is to be satisfied is considered in detail – It is articulated therein that equality before the law or the equal protection of laws does not mean identity or abstract symmetry of treatment and that reasonable classification is permitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A.…
Decision of National Law School of India University (NLSIU) hold a separate admission test by way of the National Legal Aptitude Test (NLAT) – Quashing of – Home based online examination as proposed by the respondent No.1 University for NLAT-2020-21 could not be held to be a test which was able to maintain transparency and integrity of the examination
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok…
Complaint filed at Agra transfer sought to Siliguri (WB) SCOI refused HELD Court Within Whose Jurisdiction The Bank Branch Where The Payee Maintains The Account Is Situated, Can Try Cheque Bounce Complaint: S C O I
The court said that if the delivery challan which states that all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Siliguri, is construed by the petitioners to constitute…
IMP : Relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary, after the 2018 amendment, of Specific Relief Act The Court is, now obliged to enforce the specific performance of a contract,
Interpretation of Specific Relief Act prior to 2018 amendment After the amendment of Section 10 of the S.R.A., the words “specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion…
C P C – Or 2, R 2 – Suit to include the whole claim – Plea of Bar – The plea of bar under Or 2, R 2 is a technical plea which has to be pleaded and satisfactorily established. If the plea of bar is not taken, the Court should not suo moto decide the plea. It cannot be raised before Supreme Court if not raised in the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B. SANTOSHAMMA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. D. SARALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…
Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt – The law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them. Appellate Tribunal was empowered to condone the delay upto a period of period of 45 days – Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020, for enlarging, even the period up to which delay can be condoned.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAGUFA AHMED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde,…
Appellant was working as a typist/data entry operator in court premises in Delhi – High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded – High Court halved it to 45% on an entirely wrong application of some ‘proportionate’ principle (following the Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 860 principle), which was illogical and is unsupportable in law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PAPPU DEO YADAV — Appellant Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra…
Gift Deed Property – Deficiency in stamp duty on deed – Imposition of extreme penalty HELD Collector is not required by law to impose the maximum rate of penalty as a matter of course whenever an impounded document is sent to him. He has to take into account various aspects including the financial position of the person concerned – It is only in the very extreme situation that penalty needs to be imposed to the extent of ten times
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…
HELD H C applied the multiplier of 16 considering age – H C erred in law in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 – Compensation for Loss of Future Prospects can be awarded in Cases of Permanent disability – Court modify the award from Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 20,26,800/-.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LALAN D. @ LAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay…