https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393157 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to enforcement of a purely contractual employment dispute against a private bank absent a public duty, public function, or statutory obligation. The bank was a private entity outside Article 12, and the employment relationship was governed by contract, so the dispute remained in the private law realm. Section 35B(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act operates only as a regulatory approval mechanism for specified terminations and does not regulate service conditions or decide inter se employment rights. The Reserve Bank's approval or refusal therefore did not create a public law element, and the writ petition was not maintainable. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2020 07:47:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393157 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to enforcement of a purely contractual employment dispute against a private bank absent a public duty, public function, or statutory obligation. The bank was a private entity outside Article 12, and the employment relationship was governed by contract, so the dispute remained in the private law realm. Section 35B(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act operates only as a regulatory approval mechanism for specified terminations and does not regulate service conditions or decide inter se employment rights. The Reserve Bank's approval or refusal therefore did not create a public law element, and the writ petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393157