https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767285 The High Court held that a writ of mandamus to compel a statutory regulator to exercise supervisory powers over an NBFC was maintainable under Article 226, because the relief sought addressed regulatory inaction rather than the company-law disputes pending before the NCLT and NCLAT. Parallel proceedings under the Companies Act did not oust writ jurisdiction where the specialised tribunals could not grant relief against the regulator's alleged failure to act. The Court also held that the Single Judge did not exceed the scope of the hearing or breach natural justice by issuing interim protective directions to safeguard the company's corpus in light of disclosed regulatory non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:41:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767285 The High Court held that a writ of mandamus to compel a statutory regulator to exercise supervisory powers over an NBFC was maintainable under Article 226, because the relief sought addressed regulatory inaction rather than the company-law disputes pending before the NCLT and NCLAT. Parallel proceedings under the Companies Act did not oust writ jurisdiction where the specialised tribunals could not grant relief against the regulator's alleged failure to act. The Court also held that the Single Judge did not exceed the scope of the hearing or breach natural justice by issuing interim protective directions to safeguard the company's corpus in light of disclosed regulatory non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767285