https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766090 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable where a public regulator vested with statutory supervisory powers and a corresponding duty was alleged to have failed to act against apparent regulatory breaches by a non-banking financial company. The Court treated the Reserve Bank of India's power to inspect, seek information and intervene in the public and depositor interest as amenable to mandamus, and held that parallel proceedings before the NCLT or NCLAT did not bar writ relief because those fora could not compel the regulator to exercise its own statutory powers. It also found that the learned Single Judge did not exceed jurisdiction or breach natural justice when issuing protective directions on the material already on record. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766090 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable where a public regulator vested with statutory supervisory powers and a corresponding duty was alleged to have failed to act against apparent regulatory breaches by a non-banking financial company. The Court treated the Reserve Bank of India's power to inspect, seek information and intervene in the public and depositor interest as amenable to mandamus, and held that parallel proceedings before the NCLT or NCLAT did not bar writ relief because those fora could not compel the regulator to exercise its own statutory powers. It also found that the learned Single Judge did not exceed jurisdiction or breach natural justice when issuing protective directions on the material already on record. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766090