<?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>1992 (7) TMI 345 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275658</link>
    <description>Temporal classification of securities offences under the Ordinance was upheld because the date-based grouping had a rational nexus with the urgent legislative aim of tackling large-scale market manipulation and recovering siphoned public funds. The challenge to the Custodian&#039;s power to notify a person and attach property without a prior hearing also failed, because immediate action was justified by the need to prevent dissipation of assets and the scheme provided effective post-decisional supervision and relief before the Special Court. The statutory framework was therefore treated as neither arbitrary nor contrary to natural justice, Articles 14 or 19.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:35:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 345 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275658</link>
      <description>Temporal classification of securities offences under the Ordinance was upheld because the date-based grouping had a rational nexus with the urgent legislative aim of tackling large-scale market manipulation and recovering siphoned public funds. The challenge to the Custodian&#039;s power to notify a person and attach property without a prior hearing also failed, because immediate action was justified by the need to prevent dissipation of assets and the scheme provided effective post-decisional supervision and relief before the Special Court. The statutory framework was therefore treated as neither arbitrary nor contrary to natural justice, Articles 14 or 19.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>