https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189521 Economic regulation limiting the number of depositors that an individual, firm or unincorporated association may accept was treated as a reasonable measure to protect the public and small depositors. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 19(1)(c) was rejected because the law did not compel incorporation, merely imposed differential regulatory treatment, and the restriction was neither arbitrary nor excessive. Parliament was also found competent to legislate on deposit-taking activity, which was treated in pith and substance as allied to banking, with residuary power available in any event. The legislation was therefore sustained as valid deposit-control regulation. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189521 Economic regulation limiting the number of depositors that an individual, firm or unincorporated association may accept was treated as a reasonable measure to protect the public and small depositors. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 19(1)(c) was rejected because the law did not compel incorporation, merely imposed differential regulatory treatment, and the restriction was neither arbitrary nor excessive. Parliament was also found competent to legislate on deposit-taking activity, which was treated in pith and substance as allied to banking, with residuary power available in any event. The legislation was therefore sustained as valid deposit-control regulation. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189521