https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100147 A regulatory requirement for companies inviting public deposits was upheld as a valid measure of depositor protection and corporate social control. The Court found that maintaining liquid assets against maturing deposits had a rational nexus with repayment obligations and was neither arbitrary nor confiscatory, so the challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed. It also held that rule 3A was supported by section 58A and the statutory scheme, showing sufficient legislative policy and no excessive delegation. Applying pith and substance, the legislation was held to fall within Union legislative competence, and the transitional proviso was not treated as impermissibly retrospective. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100147 A regulatory requirement for companies inviting public deposits was upheld as a valid measure of depositor protection and corporate social control. The Court found that maintaining liquid assets against maturing deposits had a rational nexus with repayment obligations and was neither arbitrary nor confiscatory, so the challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed. It also held that rule 3A was supported by section 58A and the statutory scheme, showing sufficient legislative policy and no excessive delegation. Applying pith and substance, the legislation was held to fall within Union legislative competence, and the transitional proviso was not treated as impermissibly retrospective. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 21 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100147