https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106258 The moratorium was upheld because the record showed a factual and legal basis for its exercise under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the earlier findings supporting it had not been displaced. No denial of effective post-decisional hearing was shown, because objections to the draft scheme and moratorium-related action had been available and were considered by the competent authority before the impugned orders. The request to allow conversion into a non-banking company was also rejected, since the RBI Act, 1934, as amended, required registration for such an entity and did not support the conversion route sought; the request was also found belated and unsupported by public interest. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:36:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106258 The moratorium was upheld because the record showed a factual and legal basis for its exercise under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the earlier findings supporting it had not been displaced. No denial of effective post-decisional hearing was shown, because objections to the draft scheme and moratorium-related action had been available and were considered by the competent authority before the impugned orders. The request to allow conversion into a non-banking company was also rejected, since the RBI Act, 1934, as amended, required registration for such an entity and did not support the conversion route sought; the request was also found belated and unsupported by public interest. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106258