<?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>2003 (10) TMI 388 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108342</link>
    <description>A multi-state co-operative society could not obtain a banking licence unless it first satisfied the statutory definition of a co-operative bank under the Banking Regulation Act. The analysis states that a State declaration as a State co-operative bank under the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act was a necessary precondition, and the broader status of a multi-state co-operative society could not override that licensing framework. It further states that State recognition depended on the society being the principal co-operative society in the State and actually carrying on the requisite business there; mere registration or receipt of subscription funds was insufficient. Recognition in one State did not support banking operations in another State without a valid declaration there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 388 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108342</link>
      <description>A multi-state co-operative society could not obtain a banking licence unless it first satisfied the statutory definition of a co-operative bank under the Banking Regulation Act. The analysis states that a State declaration as a State co-operative bank under the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act was a necessary precondition, and the broader status of a multi-state co-operative society could not override that licensing framework. It further states that State recognition depended on the society being the principal co-operative society in the State and actually carrying on the requisite business there; mere registration or receipt of subscription funds was insufficient. Recognition in one State did not support banking operations in another State without a valid declaration there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>