https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199558 A moratorium ordered under Section 45(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was described as a statutory step in a banking arrangement, and the absence of a pre-decisional hearing did not invalidate it because the scheme itself provided a later opportunity to object when the draft scheme was considered. Those objections were to be examined in the statutory process under Section 45(7), after the draft scheme was framed under Section 45(4) and forwarded under Section 45(6). The apprehension that the Central Government would not fairly consider the petitioners' objections was not accepted, and the petitioners' request to continue as non-banking companies after discharging their dues was directed to receive due consideration, with additional time granted for decision. en-us Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 17:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199558 A moratorium ordered under Section 45(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was described as a statutory step in a banking arrangement, and the absence of a pre-decisional hearing did not invalidate it because the scheme itself provided a later opportunity to object when the draft scheme was considered. Those objections were to be examined in the statutory process under Section 45(7), after the draft scheme was framed under Section 45(4) and forwarded under Section 45(6). The apprehension that the Central Government would not fairly consider the petitioners' objections was not accepted, and the petitioners' request to continue as non-banking companies after discharging their dues was directed to receive due consideration, with additional time granted for decision. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199558