![[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)
Probation—The most important ground which stands out, is that prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties.
2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 331 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 523 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Writ Petition (Criminal)…
Dishonour of Cheque—Blank Cheque—Subsequent filing in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. Dishonour of Cheque—Presumption of debt—The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139.
2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 321 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 525 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal Nos. 230-231…
Murder–Doctrine of Parity–Appellant submitted that there is a parity between the co-accused persons and while other were convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC he alone has been convicted under Section 302 IPC–However, appellant had given a fatal blow on the neck with aruval and injury caused by such act proved fatal–Plea of parity rejected.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 530 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 38…
Unlawful Assembly–Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was attracted by that common object is one those set out in Section 141 IPC
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 525 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. of…
Writ appeal–Dismissal on cryptic grounds–In matters involving constitutionality, it would not be open for High Court to dismiss writ appeals on cryptic grounds.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 524 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No. 272 OF 2009…
Hearsay evidence–Hearsay evidence could be used to corroborate the substantive evidence.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 521 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 448…
Criminal Law–Murder–Common intention–Prosecution case that appellant alongwith other accused murdered the deceased–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–Mere fact that he was in the company of accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 I.P.C.–It is undisputed that appellant was not armed and he has no animosity with the deceased
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 518 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…
Co-sharer–When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or any portion thereof and puts the vendor into possession of land in his possession what he transfers is his right as a co-sharers in said land and right to remain in its exclusive possession till joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers—Sale of subsequent portion of land out of joint holding by the co-owners is nothing but a sale of a share out of the joint holding and is pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) of Act
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 514 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 321…
Eye-witness–Simply because the eyewitnesses did not make any attempt to save the life of the deceased from the clutches of the accused persons, their abnormal conduct by itself cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve and discard their testimony.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 510 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan Reddy Criminal Appeal No. 551 of…
Will can be proved by examining at least one witness–Alongwith it has to be shown that it was free from suspicious circumstances–Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3–Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68–Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c).–It may be true that deprivation of a due share by the natural heir by itself may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance but it is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the courts
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 502 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008…