<?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>Banking amalgamation scheme upheld as a valid public-interest measure protecting depositors and surviving constitutional challenge.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98727</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. amalgamation scheme with Unity Small Finance Bank, finding no constitutional, statutory or procedural infirmity in the approval under the Banking Regulation Act. It held that judicial review of banking and economic policy is limited, and the RBI&#039;s decision was a public-interest measure justified by the bank&#039;s severe erosion of net worth and need to protect depositors. The Court also rejected challenges to depositor classification, staggered repayment and reduced interest, holding that retail and institutional depositors formed a valid distinction and that Section 45 permitted modification of depositor rights. Procedural objections on consultation, hearing and supersession of the board were also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Banking amalgamation scheme upheld as a valid public-interest measure protecting depositors and surviving constitutional challenge.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98727</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. amalgamation scheme with Unity Small Finance Bank, finding no constitutional, statutory or procedural infirmity in the approval under the Banking Regulation Act. It held that judicial review of banking and economic policy is limited, and the RBI&#039;s decision was a public-interest measure justified by the bank&#039;s severe erosion of net worth and need to protect depositors. The Court also rejected challenges to depositor classification, staggered repayment and reduced interest, holding that retail and institutional depositors formed a valid distinction and that Section 45 permitted modification of depositor rights. Procedural objections on consultation, hearing and supersession of the board were also rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>