https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97083 Statutory control over one company was upheld where shareholders retained title to shares, dividends and transfer rights, and the curtailed voting and winding-up powers were treated as incidents of ownership rather than deprivation of property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. The law was also sustained under Article 14 because the Legislature could reasonably treat the company as a distinct class on the basis of exceptional mismanagement and public hardship, and the presumption of constitutionality was not rebutted. The legislation was further held to fall within Union competence over incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97083 Statutory control over one company was upheld where shareholders retained title to shares, dividends and transfer rights, and the curtailed voting and winding-up powers were treated as incidents of ownership rather than deprivation of property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. The law was also sustained under Article 14 because the Legislature could reasonably treat the company as a distinct class on the basis of exceptional mismanagement and public hardship, and the presumption of constitutionality was not rebutted. The legislation was further held to fall within Union competence over incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 04 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97083