![[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)
Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be Prosecuted U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act HELD “Offences by body corporate like City Municipal Council are covered under Section 49 treating it to be offence as by company as provided in Section 47.”
Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be Prosecuted U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act: SC [Read Judgment] “Offences by body corporate like City Municipal Council are…
SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019 Amendment HELD “The retrospective resurrection of an automatic-stay not only turns the clock backwards contrary to the object of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and the 2015 Amendment Act, but also results in payments already made under the amended Section 36 to award-holders in a situation of no-stay or conditional-stay now being reversed”
SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019 Amendment In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Section 87 of the Arbitration…
Issue Of Limitation Not To Be Examined While Considering Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator HELD “The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre¬reference stage under Section 11 of the Act”
Issue Of Limitation Not To Be Examined While Considering Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI27 Nov 2019 8:35 PM “The issue of limitation is a…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13 and 19(1) – Demand of bribe to provide the electricity meter – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Recovery of the money from the pocket of the appellant has also been proved without doubt – Money was demanded and accepted not as a legal remuneration but as a motive or reward to provide electricity connection – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR GARG — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna,…
Telegraph Act, 1883 – Sections 16, 16(1) to 16(4) read with Section 10 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 164 – Construction of electricity transmission – Injunction – Appeal against – HELD monetary compensation which we will not like to adjudicate and would leave this issue open, given the order of the District Magistrate, Thane and as the present appeal is directed against an interim order. Continuation of injunction is not warranted and justified in law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTURY RAYON LIMITED @APPELLLANT — Appellant Vs. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari,…
:……….it is clear that schemes which extinguish local water bodies albeit with alternatives, as provided in the 2016 Government Order by the State of UP, are violative of Constitutional principles and are liable to be struck down – The allotment of all water bodies or any other similar third party is held to be illegal and the same is hereby quashed.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITENDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
“The order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable irrespective of the fact whether the Settlement Agreement is with respect to the properties which was/were the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court or not.”
Disputes About Properties Which Are Not Subject Matter Of Litigation Can Be Settled In Mediation: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI25 Nov 2019 7:56 PM “The order in terms of…
“…………..there is no evidence to show that the appellant did not obey the command of PW-30 or PW-29-Superintendent of Police who were present on the spot for issuing directions and commands – There is no evidence to prove that the appellant omitted to do any act to sustain the conviction under Section 217 IPC” – Appellant acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. RAJARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi And A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304B and Section 498A – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113A – Cruelty – Suicide – Presumption – Merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and the death has occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Ac
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492-1493…
“….to examine whether an interest is assignable, it has to be seen whether the terms of the contract, and the circumstances in which the contract was entered into, lead to an inference that the parties did not intend to make their interest therein assignable”
Assignment Of Interest Is Not Valid Merely Because It Was Not Expressly Prohibited In Contract: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI26 Nov 2019 12:36 PM “It has to be seen…