https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93770 The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused. en-us Sat, 01 Nov 2025 08:17:02 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2025 08:17:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93770 The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused. Highlights IBC Sat, 01 Nov 2025 08:17:02 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93770