<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>RBI&#039;s Failure to Exercise Statutory Powers Under Sections 45-IE and 45MA Leads to Mandamus Issuance</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85849</link>
    <description>HC affirmed issuance of mandamus under Article 226 where RBI failed to exercise statutory powers regarding ECL&#039;s regulatory violations. Court established that vesting of statutory power upon public authority implies duty, enforceable through writ jurisdiction. Parallel NCLT proceedings did not bar HC&#039;s constitutional jurisdiction to direct RBI&#039;s exercise of powers under RBI Act, specifically Sections 45-IE and 45MA. HC maintained its authority to issue protective interim orders based on RBI&#039;s findings of ECL&#039;s regulatory breaches. Court emphasized that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs directing RBI&#039;s statutory functions. Appeal challenging writ maintainability dismissed, upholding HC&#039;s constitutional mandate to ensure statutory authorities fulfill prescribed duties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=799286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>RBI&#039;s Failure to Exercise Statutory Powers Under Sections 45-IE and 45MA Leads to Mandamus Issuance</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85849</link>
      <description>HC affirmed issuance of mandamus under Article 226 where RBI failed to exercise statutory powers regarding ECL&#039;s regulatory violations. Court established that vesting of statutory power upon public authority implies duty, enforceable through writ jurisdiction. Parallel NCLT proceedings did not bar HC&#039;s constitutional jurisdiction to direct RBI&#039;s exercise of powers under RBI Act, specifically Sections 45-IE and 45MA. HC maintained its authority to issue protective interim orders based on RBI&#039;s findings of ECL&#039;s regulatory breaches. Court emphasized that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs directing RBI&#039;s statutory functions. Appeal challenging writ maintainability dismissed, upholding HC&#039;s constitutional mandate to ensure statutory authorities fulfill prescribed duties.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>