https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110737 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable against a private bank for measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Court held that a bank registered under the Companies Act and regulated by banking law does not become State or an instrumentality of State merely by reason of such regulation, and mandamus is unavailable absent a public duty or deep and pervasive governmental control. Because the dispute arose from measures under sections 13(2) and 13(4) and involved contested issues such as classification of the account as a non-performing asset, the borrower was relegated to the statutory remedy under section 17. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110737 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable against a private bank for measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Court held that a bank registered under the Companies Act and regulated by banking law does not become State or an instrumentality of State merely by reason of such regulation, and mandamus is unavailable absent a public duty or deep and pervasive governmental control. Because the dispute arose from measures under sections 13(2) and 13(4) and involved contested issues such as classification of the account as a non-performing asset, the borrower was relegated to the statutory remedy under section 17. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110737