Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds validity of RBI Act provisions & notification, dismisses petitioners' arguments. Provisions deemed necessary for public interest.</h1> <h3>Mayavaram Financial Corporation Versus Reserve Bank Of India And Ors.</h3> Mayavaram Financial Corporation Versus Reserve Bank Of India And Ors. - 1971 41 Comp Cas 890 Mad Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence2. Distinction between Deposit and Borrowing3. Validity of Notification and Directions4. Excessive Delegation5. Colourable Legislation6. Control by Reserve Bank of IndiaIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence:The petitioners argued that the impugned provisions of Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, intrench upon entries 26 and 30 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which pertain to trade and commerce and money-lending, respectively. They contended that chit funds fall under these entries, making the legislation ultra vires. The court held that the impugned provisions relate to the control of currency and credit by the Reserve Bank, falling under entries 36 and 38 of List I, and not under entries 26 or 30 of List II. The court also noted that chit funds involve special contracts falling under entry 7 of List III, and the President's assent to the Act confirms this view.2. Distinction between Deposit and Borrowing:The petitioners contended that Sections 45J, 45K, and 45L of the Reserve Bank of India Act maintain a distinction between deposit and borrowing, which is a well-recognized distinction. They argued that the notification defining 'deposit' is ultra vires. The court held that there is a distinction between money-lending and money borrowing, and the impugned provisions controlling money borrowing in the state of deposits from third parties and lending the same are valid.3. Validity of Notification and Directions:The petitioners challenged the validity of the notification issued by the Reserve Bank under Sections 45J to 45L, arguing that it was ultra vires and unreasonable. The court found that the notification and the directions issued therein are reasonable, valid, and necessary to safeguard the interests of the investing public. The court upheld the provisions of the notification, including the definition of 'deposit,' the restrictions on acceptance of deposits, and the particulars to be furnished in advertisements soliciting deposits.4. Excessive Delegation:The petitioners argued that Section 45Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act involves excessive delegation. The court held that Parliament is entitled to make a law abrogating or replacing by implication the provisions of any pre-existing law, and no exception can be taken to such legislation on the ground of excessive delegation.5. Colourable Legislation:The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions are colourable, as they purport to regulate an activity of the foreman but, in effect, legislate upon a subject reserved for the State. The court rejected this contention, holding that the impugned legislation falls under entries 36 and 38 of List I and is not colourable.6. Control by Reserve Bank of India:The court noted that the Reserve Bank of India has comprehensive powers to regulate and control the receipt of public deposits by banking institutions. The impugned provisions aim to extend this control to non-banking institutions, including chit funds, to protect depositors and ensure effective credit control. The court upheld the validity of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank, finding them necessary and reasonable to safeguard the interests of the investing public.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned provisions of Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and the notification dated October 29, 1966, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, are valid. The petitioners' contentions were found to be without substance, and the court awarded costs to the respondents.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found