https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195991 The High Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a financial institution to accept a one-time settlement offer in loan recovery matters unless there is a statutory duty involved. The Court emphasized that interference in contractual matters under Article 226 jurisdiction is limited to instances of legal errors or statutory violations. Judicial intervention in creditor-debtor relationships could disrupt financial stability and lending activities. The Court set aside the previous order, stressing the need to uphold legal principles over sympathy, and allowed the writ appeal while closing the related petitions. en-us Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:10:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195991 The High Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a financial institution to accept a one-time settlement offer in loan recovery matters unless there is a statutory duty involved. The Court emphasized that interference in contractual matters under Article 226 jurisdiction is limited to instances of legal errors or statutory violations. Judicial intervention in creditor-debtor relationships could disrupt financial stability and lending activities. The Court set aside the previous order, stressing the need to uphold legal principles over sympathy, and allowed the writ appeal while closing the related petitions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195991