![[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)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – IPC , 1860 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 165 – Constitution of India, Art 14 – Corruption Charges – Punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is without merit – It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject to principles of proportionality and fair play
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAVIN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant,…
Writ Petition to Supreme Court of India, Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Passed By High Court
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transferred Case (Criminal) No 1 of 2020 Neelam Manmohan Attavar …Petitioner(s) Versus Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr LRs …Respondent(s) O R…
N D P S Act, 1985 – Ss 20(b)(ii)(B) & 50 – Possession 20 kg – Ganja from the motor cycle – NDPS Trial is not vitiated merely because ownership of Vehicle from which Contraband was seized is not established – It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RIZWAN KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 – S 45 – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Corporation Pension Regulations, 1989 – Regulations 3, 3(1), 3(k) and 43 – Rejection of pension – HELD Merely because the respondent had withdrawn the entire CPF amount prior to his absorption would not make any difference because the CPF account was closed by the Board on the employee’s absorption – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and…
(IPC) – Ss 302 – Murder – Single injury – There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted – It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STALIN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.…
Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 – Sections 21AA and 167A – Club Rules – Rule 35 – Liability to pay Wealth Tax – Section 21AA does not enlarge the field of tax payers but only plugs evasion -applying the ratio of CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Family 108 ITR 555 (1977), HELD club members fixed body as on the date of liquidation. Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BANGALORE CLUB — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AND ANOTHER — RespondentS ( Before : R. F. Nariman, Navin Sinha…
Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – “Loss of Consortium” – Can be award to the legal heirs also.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SMT. SOMWATI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 36A – Invitation for expression of interest- HELD The second meeting of the Committee of Creditors was held on 27.03.2018. The advertisement was approved in the said meeting – It was the unamended Regulation 36A that was in force at that time – This has not been appreciated by NCLAT, order of is flawed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.…
Service Law – Recruitment – Post of District Judges (Entry Level) – Grievance of the petitioners is that despite being the senior most in the cadre of District Judges, HELD a person holding a judicial office is better placed, as he is assured of a career progression (though in a limited sense) after being placed in something like a conveyor belt. There is no such assurance for an advocate – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. POORNIMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S.…
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Rule 32(e) – Misbranded Standards – Product had the necessary barcode on it that contained all the relevant information as required by Rule 32(e) such as batch no./code no./lot no etc HELD information under Rule 32(e) with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAGHAV GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…