<?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>2007 (3) TMI 783 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188518</link>
    <description>The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1997 was treated as a socio-economic measure to protect depositors, authorising attachment, objections, adjudication, sale and distribution of assets. The Court held that the post-decisional hearing framework, including objections before the Special Court and protection for affected third parties, was a workable procedure justified by urgency and did not offend natural justice or Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. It further held that, in pith and substance, the Act fell within the State&#039;s legislative field and any overlap with Central banking or companies laws was only incidental. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2016 18:06:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 783 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188518</link>
      <description>The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1997 was treated as a socio-economic measure to protect depositors, authorising attachment, objections, adjudication, sale and distribution of assets. The Court held that the post-decisional hearing framework, including objections before the Special Court and protection for affected third parties, was a workable procedure justified by urgency and did not offend natural justice or Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. It further held that, in pith and substance, the Act fell within the State&#039;s legislative field and any overlap with Central banking or companies laws was only incidental. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>