https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218191 A depositor-protection enactment targeting fraudulent deposit-accepting schemes was treated as falling within State legislative competence under Entries 1, 30 and 32 of List II. Any overlap with Union List Entries 43, 44 and 45 did not displace that competence, and Presidential assent saved any repugnancy under Article 254(2). The definition of "financial establishment" in Section 2(d) was read broadly because "any person" includes a juristic person, so incorporated companies and unincorporated entities were both covered. On that basis, the Act, the Government Order, and the action taken under it were upheld. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Apr 2020 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218191 A depositor-protection enactment targeting fraudulent deposit-accepting schemes was treated as falling within State legislative competence under Entries 1, 30 and 32 of List II. Any overlap with Union List Entries 43, 44 and 45 did not displace that competence, and Presidential assent saved any repugnancy under Article 254(2). The definition of "financial establishment" in Section 2(d) was read broadly because "any person" includes a juristic person, so incorporated companies and unincorporated entities were both covered. On that basis, the Act, the Government Order, and the action taken under it were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218191