<?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>2000 (8) TMI 988 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104850</link>
    <description>The amended Section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 regulates the acceptance of public deposits by unincorporated entities as a protective measure for depositors. Its validity was examined mainly under Article 19(1)(g) and the doctrine of reasonable restriction, with the challenge under Articles 21 and 300-A found inapplicable and the equality challenge rejected. The provision was upheld as a reasonable regulatory restriction enacted in larger public interest, and the same amended provision had already been sustained by the Supreme Court. The measure was therefore treated as constitutionally valid and effective to control deposit-taking activity in the public interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:37:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 988 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104850</link>
      <description>The amended Section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 regulates the acceptance of public deposits by unincorporated entities as a protective measure for depositors. Its validity was examined mainly under Article 19(1)(g) and the doctrine of reasonable restriction, with the challenge under Articles 21 and 300-A found inapplicable and the equality challenge rejected. The provision was upheld as a reasonable regulatory restriction enacted in larger public interest, and the same amended provision had already been sustained by the Supreme Court. The measure was therefore treated as constitutionally valid and effective to control deposit-taking activity in the public interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>