![[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)
Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 – Rules 28, 28(i) and Rule 28(iii) – Seniority – Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service – In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S.Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
Mining Activity – Grant of environmental clearance – Report shows that the ground reality is different from what was projected by the Appellant in its application for grant of the environmental clearance – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : L.…
Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 250, 263, 268, 276, 278, 283, 283(1)C and 283(1) – Probate of Will – Revocation of – If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been dis-inherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate court to appear and certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJU PURI — Appellant Vs. RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8455…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded – Scheme of Section 11A does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie determination or hearing.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…
Inter-State River Dispute Act, 1956 – Sections 3, 4, 9 and 11 – Use, control and distribution of waters of an Inter-State River – It must be stated that Section 3 of the Act postulates that a request be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed, whereafter the requisite power can be exercised by the Central Government
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 24A – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Imposition of costs -the Society would now be required to pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD — Appellant Vs. FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sections 13-B and 18-A – Constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Right of Non-Resident Indians to initiate eviction under the summary procedure provided in Section 18-A of the Rent Act is not an unfettered and absolute right – Held such amendment, Constitutional
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao…
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32G – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 111 – Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 – Sections 5(11), 5(11)(c), 6 and 5(11)(c)(ii) – Eviction
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMESHCHANDRA DAULAL SONI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DEVICHAND HIRALAL GANDHI (DEAD) THR.LRS. SMT. GULABBAI DEVICHAND GANDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 and 11(6) – When the agreement specifically provides for appointment of named arbitrators, the appointment should be in terms of the agreement
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. PRADEEP VINOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 62 – Alteration of contract – As the very jurisdiction of the arbitrator is dependent upon the existence of the arbitration clause under which he is appointed, the parties have no right to invoke a clause which perishes with the contract.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAPCOS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SALMA DAM JOINT VENTURE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…