https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405580 Section 110A(1)(iii) was analysed as a mandatory mechanism for implementing a binding RBI directive on suspension or supersession of a co-operative bank's board, leaving the Registrar no discretion to depart from that direction. On that basis, prior show-cause notice and personal hearing were held unnecessary, and the resulting action was treated as administrative rather than quasi-judicial. The commentary also states that the amendment reducing the maximum period to one year was consistent with Article 243ZL, with no repugnancy. It further distinguishes Section 102 winding-up procedure as inapplicable to action under Section 110A(1)(iii). en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:43:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405580 Section 110A(1)(iii) was analysed as a mandatory mechanism for implementing a binding RBI directive on suspension or supersession of a co-operative bank's board, leaving the Registrar no discretion to depart from that direction. On that basis, prior show-cause notice and personal hearing were held unnecessary, and the resulting action was treated as administrative rather than quasi-judicial. The commentary also states that the amendment reducing the maximum period to one year was consistent with Article 243ZL, with no repugnancy. It further distinguishes Section 102 winding-up procedure as inapplicable to action under Section 110A(1)(iii). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405580