https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462013 A one-time settlement scheme that treated defaulting promoters differently depending on whether there had been an abortive attempt to transfer secured assets was found to lack a rational basis. The court noted that, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, ownership in the secured assets continued with the promoter until an actual transfer was completed, so a failed sale attempt did not extinguish proprietary rights. Requiring additional retention money from promoters whose transfer process had failed therefore bore no real connection to the scheme's recovery objective. The impugned classification was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and the challenged condition was invalid. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2025 18:32:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462013 A one-time settlement scheme that treated defaulting promoters differently depending on whether there had been an abortive attempt to transfer secured assets was found to lack a rational basis. The court noted that, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, ownership in the secured assets continued with the promoter until an actual transfer was completed, so a failed sale attempt did not extinguish proprietary rights. Requiring additional retention money from promoters whose transfer process had failed therefore bore no real connection to the scheme's recovery objective. The impugned classification was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and the challenged condition was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462013