https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199555 A moratorium under section 45(2) of the Banking Regulation Act was treated as an interim measure to facilitate consideration of reconstruction or amalgamation, so prior notice or a pre-decisional hearing was held unnecessary where it would frustrate the process. The moratorium did not bar the statutory power to frame a draft scheme under section 45(4), and no separate order under section 53 was required for that purpose. Objections under section 45(6) were understood broadly enough to cover challenges to the basis of the scheme process. The Reserve Bank's valuation under section 11(5)(b) and section 11(6), and its reasons and satisfaction supporting the moratorium and scheme, were treated as final or not ordinarily open to judicial review under Article 226. en-us Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 17:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199555 A moratorium under section 45(2) of the Banking Regulation Act was treated as an interim measure to facilitate consideration of reconstruction or amalgamation, so prior notice or a pre-decisional hearing was held unnecessary where it would frustrate the process. The moratorium did not bar the statutory power to frame a draft scheme under section 45(4), and no separate order under section 53 was required for that purpose. Objections under section 45(6) were understood broadly enough to cover challenges to the basis of the scheme process. The Reserve Bank's valuation under section 11(5)(b) and section 11(6), and its reasons and satisfaction supporting the moratorium and scheme, were treated as final or not ordinarily open to judicial review under Article 226. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199555