Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970
and "it does not mean merely having a reference to". [p.
96]. We are unable to agree. The decision in Madhav Rao v.
Union of India (supra) was given in the context of the
provisions of Article 363 which excludes the jurisdiction of
the Court and it was observed that the principle that a
provision which purports to exclude the jurisdiction of the
courts in certain matters and so deprives the aggrieved
party of the normal remedy will be strictly construed, "is a
principle not be whittled down" [p. 95]. In that case, the
Court has emphasised :
Article 363 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 45 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
[p. 462]
After the said decision in Peerless II upholding Paragraphs
6 and 12 of the 1987 Directions, Peerless has resorted to
the course of splitting up the amounts received in respect
of the first two instalments in the scheme. By way of
illustration we would refer to their scheme in Table 23.
Under this Scheme endowment amount was Rs. 1400/- payable on
maturity after 10 years and the yearly instalment was Rs.
100/-. Out of the sum of Rs. 100/- received by way of first
and second instalments, Rs.70/- was treated as deposit in
each of the two years. The balance amount of Rs. 30/- out of
the first instalment was credited as processing charges and
the balance amount of Rs. 30/- out of the second instalment
was credited as maintenance charges. On maturity the
subscriber was entitled to be paid Rs. 1400/- as endowment
sum and an additional amount of Rs.353/- as bonus. The case
of Peerless is that the two amounts of Rs. 30/- each which
were retained by way of processing charges and maintenance
charges were not part of deposit and it was not necessary
for Peerless to comply with the directions contained in
Paragraphs 6 and 12 of the 1987 Directions in respect of the
said sums. In order to cover up this mode of avoiding
compliance with the requirements of Paragraphs 6 and 12 of
the 1987 Directions, the Bank, by notification dated April
19, 1993, amended the 1987 Directions and inserted Paragraph
4A which contains the following provision :