https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286630 A majority of the SC held that temporary restrictions on a shareholder's voting, resolution-making, and winding-up rights did not amount to deprivation of property under article 31, because the shares, dividends, and transfer rights remained intact. The same restrictions were treated as incidents of shareholding and, in any event, as measures directed to securing production of an essential commodity and preventing unemployment, so the article 19 challenge failed. The Court also upheld the special legislation under article 14, finding no proof of arbitrary selection or hostile discrimination against the company. Finally, the enactment was held to fall within Union competence over incorporation, regulation, and winding up of trading corporations, though one Judge dissented on discrimination. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286630 A majority of the SC held that temporary restrictions on a shareholder's voting, resolution-making, and winding-up rights did not amount to deprivation of property under article 31, because the shares, dividends, and transfer rights remained intact. The same restrictions were treated as incidents of shareholding and, in any event, as measures directed to securing production of an essential commodity and preventing unemployment, so the article 19 challenge failed. The Court also upheld the special legislation under article 14, finding no proof of arbitrary selection or hostile discrimination against the company. Finally, the enactment was held to fall within Union competence over incorporation, regulation, and winding up of trading corporations, though one Judge dissented on discrimination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286630