https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294735 Writ jurisdiction may be used despite disputed facts and an alternative civil remedy where public law obligations and civil liability of State instrumentalities are implicated. The Gujarat HC treated a banking committee of experts as a permissible court-supervised fact-finding mechanism, not an improper delegation of judicial power, to assess liability arising from fixed deposit fraud and irregular advances. On that basis, directions to refund the disputed deposit principal were sustained because the banks' own records and disciplinary materials pointed to fraud by their officers. The claim for contractual interest on the disputed sums was rejected. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294735 Writ jurisdiction may be used despite disputed facts and an alternative civil remedy where public law obligations and civil liability of State instrumentalities are implicated. The Gujarat HC treated a banking committee of experts as a permissible court-supervised fact-finding mechanism, not an improper delegation of judicial power, to assess liability arising from fixed deposit fraud and irregular advances. On that basis, directions to refund the disputed deposit principal were sustained because the banks' own records and disciplinary materials pointed to fraud by their officers. The claim for contractual interest on the disputed sums was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294735