<?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>2022 (2) TMI 1348 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306687</link>
    <description>An inclusive construction of &quot;deposit&quot; under the MPID Act extends beyond cash to receipts of money or valuable commodities held for return after a specified period or otherwise. On that reading, a trading platform that retained funds, issued warehouse receipts, provided settlement and delivery services, and operated paired contracts with assured-return features was treated as a &quot;financial establishment&quot;; the attachment notifications under Section 4 were therefore supportable. The Act&#039;s constitutional validity was also upheld, with the challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A rejected in light of settled precedent and the State&#039;s competence to enact depositor-protection legislation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 10:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 1348 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306687</link>
      <description>An inclusive construction of &quot;deposit&quot; under the MPID Act extends beyond cash to receipts of money or valuable commodities held for return after a specified period or otherwise. On that reading, a trading platform that retained funds, issued warehouse receipts, provided settlement and delivery services, and operated paired contracts with assured-return features was treated as a &quot;financial establishment&quot;; the attachment notifications under Section 4 were therefore supportable. The Act&#039;s constitutional validity was also upheld, with the challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A rejected in light of settled precedent and the State&#039;s competence to enact depositor-protection legislation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>