https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275858 Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was analysed as part of a wider statutory scheme, and the existence of two enforcement routes, Sections 29 and 31, was held not to be discriminatory under Article 14. The Court treated the Act's object, the Corporation's statutory responsibilities, and related provisions as sufficient guidance for choosing between remedies, so the absence of an express formula did not invalidate Section 29. On the facts, the Corporation's repeated demands, Board authorisation, and prolonged default supported its shift from Section 31 to Section 29. The natural justice challenge also failed because the agreement incorporated the statutory powers and the borrower had notice from the surrounding correspondence and conduct. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:21:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275858 Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was analysed as part of a wider statutory scheme, and the existence of two enforcement routes, Sections 29 and 31, was held not to be discriminatory under Article 14. The Court treated the Act's object, the Corporation's statutory responsibilities, and related provisions as sufficient guidance for choosing between remedies, so the absence of an express formula did not invalidate Section 29. On the facts, the Corporation's repeated demands, Board authorisation, and prolonged default supported its shift from Section 31 to Section 29. The natural justice challenge also failed because the agreement incorporated the statutory powers and the borrower had notice from the surrounding correspondence and conduct. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 11 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275858