https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159607 A shareholder, depositor and director whose own legal interests were directly affected had standing to challenge the banking law. Parliament was treated as competent to enact a measure referable in substance to banking and acquisition of an undertaking as a going concern, so the enactment did not trench upon the State List. The provisions nevertheless failed constitutional scrutiny because the selection of fourteen named banks was discriminatory, the restrictions on their business were unduly destructive, and the compensation scheme used irrelevant valuation principles by excluding major elements such as goodwill and leasehold value. The core acquisition and compensation provisions were therefore unconstitutional as applied to the named banks. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159607 A shareholder, depositor and director whose own legal interests were directly affected had standing to challenge the banking law. Parliament was treated as competent to enact a measure referable in substance to banking and acquisition of an undertaking as a going concern, so the enactment did not trench upon the State List. The provisions nevertheless failed constitutional scrutiny because the selection of fourteen named banks was discriminatory, the restrictions on their business were unduly destructive, and the compensation scheme used irrelevant valuation principles by excluding major elements such as goodwill and leasehold value. The core acquisition and compensation provisions were therefore unconstitutional as applied to the named banks. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159607