https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104919 Shareholder voting power was treated as an essential incident of shareholding unless the parent Act clearly displaced it. Reading section 11 of the State Bank of India Act with section 50, the Court held that a regulation could deal only with matters not inconsistent with the Act and could not add a new restriction by subordinate legislation. The rule requiring a minimum holding of 50 shares for any vote was found to curtail the ordinary voting attribute of shares without statutory support. The Court also held that the 50-share threshold created an arbitrary classification with no rational nexus to the regulatory object, so regulation 31 was invalid and the challenge succeeded. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:43:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104919 Shareholder voting power was treated as an essential incident of shareholding unless the parent Act clearly displaced it. Reading section 11 of the State Bank of India Act with section 50, the Court held that a regulation could deal only with matters not inconsistent with the Act and could not add a new restriction by subordinate legislation. The rule requiring a minimum holding of 50 shares for any vote was found to curtail the ordinary voting attribute of shares without statutory support. The Court also held that the 50-share threshold created an arbitrary classification with no rational nexus to the regulatory object, so regulation 31 was invalid and the challenge succeeded. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104919