https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169926 Under section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, employees proposed for exclusion in an amalgamation scheme had to be specifically named in the draft scheme so the parties could object before finalisation. The Court treated the scheme-making process as administrative rather than purely legislative, so natural justice applied where exclusion from service entailed civil consequences; notice and a meaningful hearing were required, and urgency did not justify dispensing with that safeguard. The conclusive-evidence clause in section 45(7A) was held to be evidentiary only and did not bar judicial scrutiny of non-compliance with the statutory hearing requirement. The exclusion of the employees was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169926 Under section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, employees proposed for exclusion in an amalgamation scheme had to be specifically named in the draft scheme so the parties could object before finalisation. The Court treated the scheme-making process as administrative rather than purely legislative, so natural justice applied where exclusion from service entailed civil consequences; notice and a meaningful hearing were required, and urgency did not justify dispensing with that safeguard. The conclusive-evidence clause in section 45(7A) was held to be evidentiary only and did not bar judicial scrutiny of non-compliance with the statutory hearing requirement. The exclusion of the employees was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169926