https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396843 Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel adjudication of disputed loan-account issues where the controversy depends on contractual terms, the moratorium period, and the classification of accounts as non-performing assets. The Madras HC held that such questions involved disputed facts and contract interpretation, which are not fit for determination under Article 226, especially when recovery proceedings were already pending and the borrowers could pursue remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, no mandamus could issue to require the Reserve Bank of India to examine the complaints or interfere with the bank's recovery process. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:51:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396843 Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel adjudication of disputed loan-account issues where the controversy depends on contractual terms, the moratorium period, and the classification of accounts as non-performing assets. The Madras HC held that such questions involved disputed facts and contract interpretation, which are not fit for determination under Article 226, especially when recovery proceedings were already pending and the borrowers could pursue remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, no mandamus could issue to require the Reserve Bank of India to examine the complaints or interfere with the bank's recovery process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396843