https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429744 A challenge to the rejection of nominations for directorship in a private banking company was held to fall within the private corporate sphere, not a public law field. The Court noted that the Companies Act, 2013, the relevant Rules, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and SEBI regulations governed nomination and banking governance, but did not give RBI or SEBI power to compel acceptance of the nominations or intervene in the internal board-composition decision. Complaints against regulatory nominees were treated as detached from the core dispute. As no public duty or public function was involved in the impugned action, writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2022 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429744 A challenge to the rejection of nominations for directorship in a private banking company was held to fall within the private corporate sphere, not a public law field. The Court noted that the Companies Act, 2013, the relevant Rules, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and SEBI regulations governed nomination and banking governance, but did not give RBI or SEBI power to compel acceptance of the nominations or intervene in the internal board-composition decision. Complaints against regulatory nominees were treated as detached from the core dispute. As no public duty or public function was involved in the impugned action, writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429744