https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106655 Article 226 could not be used to secure rehabilitation of a sick industrial company after final orders had been passed under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a winding-up reference remained pending before the Company Court. The Court held that the writ petition could not bypass the exclusive statutory mechanism or re-agitate the same relief. Alleged defaults in disbursement of term loans and asserted assurances by financial institutions were treated as contractual disputes, not as a basis for mandamus or promissory estoppel. The direction requiring banks and financial institutions to provide revival finance was unsustainable because a writ court cannot substitute its commercial judgment for that of expert bodies or compel rehabilitation without resolving disputed facts. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106655 Article 226 could not be used to secure rehabilitation of a sick industrial company after final orders had been passed under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a winding-up reference remained pending before the Company Court. The Court held that the writ petition could not bypass the exclusive statutory mechanism or re-agitate the same relief. Alleged defaults in disbursement of term loans and asserted assurances by financial institutions were treated as contractual disputes, not as a basis for mandamus or promissory estoppel. The direction requiring banks and financial institutions to provide revival finance was unsustainable because a writ court cannot substitute its commercial judgment for that of expert bodies or compel rehabilitation without resolving disputed facts. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106655