<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (7) TMI 318 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101570</link>
    <description>A statutory moratorium under section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act suspends the banking company&#039;s operations as a whole, including transactions carried on as an authorised dealer in foreign exchange, unless the moratorium order itself permits otherwise. Separate authority under the foreign exchange law does not preserve the bank&#039;s power to transact during the moratorium, so withdrawals remain restricted to the extent allowed by the order. Article 26(d) does not exempt religious property from valid legislation, and no infringement was established where the banking statute itself was not challenged. The petitions were rejected and the moratorium upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:27:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 318 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101570</link>
      <description>A statutory moratorium under section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act suspends the banking company&#039;s operations as a whole, including transactions carried on as an authorised dealer in foreign exchange, unless the moratorium order itself permits otherwise. Separate authority under the foreign exchange law does not preserve the bank&#039;s power to transact during the moratorium, so withdrawals remain restricted to the extent allowed by the order. Article 26(d) does not exempt religious property from valid legislation, and no infringement was established where the banking statute itself was not challenged. The petitions were rejected and the moratorium upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>