Mandamus against regulatory inaction was maintainable despite parallel company-law proceedings, and interim protective directions were upheld.

The High Court held that a writ of mandamus to compel a statutory regulator to exercise supervisory powers over an NBFC was maintainable under Article 226, because the relief sought addressed regulatory inaction rather than the company-law disputes pending before the NCLT and NCLAT. Parallel proceedings under the Companies Act did not oust writ jurisdiction where the specialised tribunals could not grant relief against the regulator's alleged failure to act. The Court also held that the Single Judge did not exceed the scope of the hearing or breach natural justice by issuing interim protective directions to safeguard the company's corpus in light of disclosed regulatory non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition seeking a mandamus to the RBI to exercise its statutory powers against an NBFC was maintainable notwithstanding parallel proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT and the bar under the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of the maintainability hearing or violated principles of natural justice by issuing interim/protective directions.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition seeking a mandamus to the RBI to exercise its statutory powers against an NBFC was maintainable notwithstanding parallel proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT and the bar under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The relief sought in the writ petition was directed against the RBI's alleged failure to act on supervisory concerns regarding an NBFC. The statutory scheme under Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act confers regulatory powers on the RBI, including powers relating to inspection, information, restraint, supervision, audit, and intervention. Where a public authority is vested with statutory power coupled with a corresponding duty, a writ of mandamus may lie to compel performance. The pendency of proceedings before the NCLT or NCLAT did not oust the writ court's jurisdiction because those tribunals could not grant relief against RBI's inaction under the RBI Act, and the relief under Article 226 was distinct from the company-law disputes pending before the specialised fora.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the challenge based on parallel company-law proceedings failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of the maintainability hearing or violated principles of natural justice by issuing interim/protective directions.

Analysis: The record showed that the parties had addressed both maintainability and the underlying regulatory concerns before the learned Single Judge. The directions were passed in the context of safeguarding the company's corpus where the RBI's own status report disclosed supervisory concerns and admitted regulatory non-compliance. In such circumstances, the writ court was entitled to issue interim protective directions while dealing with maintainability, and no denial of hearing was established.

Conclusion: The learned Single Judge did not exceed jurisdiction, and no violation of natural justice was made out.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order upholding maintainability and the consequential protective directions was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory regulator has failed to exercise powers vested in it to address alleged regulatory breaches, the High Court may, under Article 226, entertain a mandamus petition and pass interim protective directions, even if related company-law proceedings are pending before other fora.

---