https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456568 A writ petition was held not maintainable against a private asset reconstruction company acting under a restructuring agreement, because no public duty or public function was shown in the lender-borrower dispute. The RBI moratorium circulars were treated as regulatory measures and did not, on the facts pleaded, convert the contractual controversy into an enforceable public law claim against the lender. The court also noted that questions on the moratorium's applicability, defaults, and contractual consequences depended on disputed facts and contractual rights, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. The challenge to the demand and enforcement notice therefore failed. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2024 20:46:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456568 A writ petition was held not maintainable against a private asset reconstruction company acting under a restructuring agreement, because no public duty or public function was shown in the lender-borrower dispute. The RBI moratorium circulars were treated as regulatory measures and did not, on the facts pleaded, convert the contractual controversy into an enforceable public law claim against the lender. The court also noted that questions on the moratorium's applicability, defaults, and contractual consequences depended on disputed facts and contractual rights, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. The challenge to the demand and enforcement notice therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456568