![[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)
Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 4(h) – Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 5 and 5(3) – Misconduct – Order of punishment – It is clear from the Regulation 5(3) that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CANARA BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMESHWAR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Service Law – Appointment under compassionate grounds – Family pension – Appeal against HELD Basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment, i.e., succor being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROMILA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil…
Service Law – Termination – Benefit of arrears of salary, seniority and continuity, arrears of salary and related benefits HELD the petitioner should be reinstated, and at the same time, the pay fixation order should ensure that the period of absence which would otherwise be treated as dies non is ignored for the purpose of fixation and fitment of salary alone – The order can also expressly state that the benefit of arrears of salary would not accrue to the petitioner
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANGILAL KAJODIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Writ…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence: Section 148 Has Retrospective Application, But 143A Is Prospective HELD non-compliance of the condition can very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due to non-compliance
NI Act: Section 148 Has Retrospective Application, But 143A Is Prospective, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 8 Jan 2020 4:57 PM The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 148…
Deferred Spectrum charges – Dismissal of Appeal for Refund – Centre’s Appeal against TDSAT order to refund of Rs 104 Crores to Reliance Communications – Order of the TDSAT does not call for any interference – The Union nowhere disputes that the respondent licensees’ liability toward payment of deferred spectrum charges, in May, 2018, was to the tune of Rs. 774.25 crores – The total amount realized upon encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the respondents, however, was to the extent of Rs. 908.91 crores
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) – Eviction – Subletting – There is no genuine partnership between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 – Respondent no.1 has come out with a case of partnership only to get out from the allegation of subletting – The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent no.2. Respondent
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A.MAHALAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302, 304, 304-Part-I, 304-Part-II – Death due to injury in quarrel – Alteration of sentence – It is true that the deceased died because of the injuries caused by the accused – However, as observed above, the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and after some altercation the accused took the lathi which was lying there and caused the injury on the head of the deceased – The offence committed does not amount to murder.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANTA KAMILYA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 302, 304, 304-Part II and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Act of pouring kerosene over a person and then putting him on fire by lighting a match stick has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of causing death of a person in a gruesome manner
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Army Act, 1950 – Sections 16, 16(2), 69 and 64(c) – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Sections 16 – Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 180 – Dismissal from service -Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to direct re-trial on any other ground except that mentioned in Section 16(2) – Non-compliance of Rule 180 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial – In addition, the Tribunal has competence only to order re-trial by the Court Martial – There is no power conferred on the Tribunal to direct the matter to be remanded to a stage prior to the Court Martial proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. NO. 3192684 W. SEP. VIRENDRA KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 163A – Vehicular accident – Compensation – Liability – As per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah,…