https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157169 A private scheduled bank regulated by banking statutes is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 merely because the RBI and Central Government exercise licensing, inspection, direction, and supervisory powers. Those controls were held to be regulatory only and did not amount to financial, functional, or administrative domination by the State. The bank remained a privately owned commercial enterprise with shareholder-elected management, no State shareholding, no monopoly status, and no transfer of a government function. It was therefore not an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12, and writ relief was unavailable absent enforcement of a statutory or public duty. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157169 A private scheduled bank regulated by banking statutes is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 merely because the RBI and Central Government exercise licensing, inspection, direction, and supervisory powers. Those controls were held to be regulatory only and did not amount to financial, functional, or administrative domination by the State. The bank remained a privately owned commercial enterprise with shareholder-elected management, no State shareholding, no monopoly status, and no transfer of a government function. It was therefore not an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12, and writ relief was unavailable absent enforcement of a statutory or public duty. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157169