https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357361 The earlier observation on non-payment of interest in security deposits was obiter, not the ratio, because it was made without direct adjudication on a no-interest clause. Retrospective validating amendments could remove the basis of a judicial decision, but they could not directly nullify a binding mandamus or final judgment by mere declaration; on that ground, the retrospective operation was invalid. However, a statutory condition denying interest on security deposits in a regulated money-lending or pawn-broking business was not per se arbitrary and did not violate Article 14, as the licence holder accepts the statutory terms of the regulated activity. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357361 The earlier observation on non-payment of interest in security deposits was obiter, not the ratio, because it was made without direct adjudication on a no-interest clause. Retrospective validating amendments could remove the basis of a judicial decision, but they could not directly nullify a binding mandamus or final judgment by mere declaration; on that ground, the retrospective operation was invalid. However, a statutory condition denying interest on security deposits in a regulated money-lending or pawn-broking business was not per se arbitrary and did not violate Article 14, as the licence holder accepts the statutory terms of the regulated activity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357361