https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460140 A lender bank's recall of credit facilities was treated as arising from a contractual banker-borrower relationship without the public law element needed for Article 226 review, so writ interference was not maintainable. The Court also noted that the borrower had withheld material facts about lease termination and arbitral proceedings, conduct viewed as inconsistent with the duty owed to the banker. Because an efficacious remedy was available under the SARFAESI framework against the demand notice, and no extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing it, discretionary relief was refused. The bank action was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:56:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460140 A lender bank's recall of credit facilities was treated as arising from a contractual banker-borrower relationship without the public law element needed for Article 226 review, so writ interference was not maintainable. The Court also noted that the borrower had withheld material facts about lease termination and arbitral proceedings, conduct viewed as inconsistent with the duty owed to the banker. Because an efficacious remedy was available under the SARFAESI framework against the demand notice, and no extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing it, discretionary relief was refused. The bank action was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460140