https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278128 A constitutional challenge to a statutory provision must be supported by clear pleadings and a factual foundation; the Court stated that the High Court should not have examined Section 4(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 on Article 14 grounds in the absence of a proper plea. The finding of unconstitutionality was therefore set aside, and the exemption issue could not be denied on that basis. The Court also noted that the applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 to the claim for compound interest had not been fully examined, so the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration with liberty to raise additional grounds. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278128 A constitutional challenge to a statutory provision must be supported by clear pleadings and a factual foundation; the Court stated that the High Court should not have examined Section 4(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 on Article 14 grounds in the absence of a proper plea. The finding of unconstitutionality was therefore set aside, and the exemption issue could not be denied on that basis. The Court also noted that the applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 to the claim for compound interest had not been fully examined, so the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration with liberty to raise additional grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278128