Judicial deference to banking policy and stressed asset resolution limits interim interference absent strong factual prejudice.

Interim judicial restraint was declined in a challenge to the RBI's stressed asset resolution circular because the petitioners had not shown a sufficient factual basis for urgent protection, and the Court noted the availability of insolvency mechanisms and broader banking stability concerns. The collective writ petitions by the associations were treated as maintainable because their bye-laws and pleadings authorised representative litigation and some member-projects fell within territorial jurisdiction. The Court also declined to halt the matter pending High Level Empowered Committee and Central Government consideration, while preserving the statutory powers of the RBI and financial creditors and directing the process to continue without interim restraint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim stay or extension of time against implementation of the RBI circular for stressed asset resolution; whether the writ petitions by the associations were maintainable; and whether the Court should defer matters pending consideration by the High Level Empowered Committee and the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim stay or extension of time against implementation of the RBI circular for stressed asset resolution.

Analysis: The circular was issued in the context of mounting non-performing assets and was part of a statutory framework intended to secure time-bound resolution of stressed assets. The Court found that the petitioners had not laid a sufficient factual foundation for interim protection, and that the alleged prejudice from initiation of insolvency proceedings was overstated because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code contemplates continuation of the corporate debtor as a going concern. The Court also noted the absence of lender parties, the lack of disclosure of individual restructuring details, and the wider public interest in banking stability.

Conclusion: Interim stay and extension of the timetable were refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions by the associations were maintainable.

Analysis: The associations' bye-laws and pleadings showed that they were authorised to litigate on behalf of their members in a collective challenge to a measure said to affect the power sector as a whole. The territorial objection was also rejected because some member-projects were situated within the Court's territorial jurisdiction and the cause of action was not confined to corporate offices alone.

Conclusion: The writ petitions by the associations were held to be maintainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court should defer matters pending consideration by the High Level Empowered Committee and the Central Government.

Analysis: The Court took note of the Standing Committee reports, the subsequent constitution of the High Level Empowered Committee, and the possibility of the Central Government invoking its consultative power under the Reserve Bank of India Act. It also directed that the RBI be invited to participate in the Committee's deliberations, while leaving open the statutory powers of the financial creditors and the RBI in specific cases.

Conclusion: The matter was directed to proceed with no interim restraint, while the Central Government was asked to consider the consultative process and the High Level Empowered Committee was asked to submit its report within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The interim prayer was declined, the collective challenge by the associations was entertained, and the Court left the substantive legality of the RBI framework to be examined at the final hearing while preserving the parties' statutory remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: In challenges to economic and banking policy measures, interim interference will not be granted unless a strong factual foundation of arbitrariness and irreparable prejudice is established; expert regulatory decisions are entitled to judicial deference, especially where statutory insolvency mechanisms remain available and the corporate debtor can continue as a going concern.

---