Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused.
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
