Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
