<?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>Writ jurisdiction over private bank compliance refusals upheld where foreign exchange processing raised public law and sanctions concerns</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100796</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction may extend to a private bank when it acts as an Authorised Dealer under the FEMA-RBI framework and its refusal to process foreign exchange transactions is challenged as arbitrary. The article notes that contractual banking dealings do not exclude judicial review where a public law element exists, and that a clean-hands objection based on alleged suppression will not automatically bar a petition if the disputed facts are part of the main controversy. It also explains that the bank could require enhanced due diligence and refuse processing when later material raised sanctions-related concerns, with the writ court declining to reappreciate disputed commercial facts and no interference being made under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Writ jurisdiction over private bank compliance refusals upheld where foreign exchange processing raised public law and sanctions concerns</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100796</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction may extend to a private bank when it acts as an Authorised Dealer under the FEMA-RBI framework and its refusal to process foreign exchange transactions is challenged as arbitrary. The article notes that contractual banking dealings do not exclude judicial review where a public law element exists, and that a clean-hands objection based on alleged suppression will not automatically bar a petition if the disputed facts are part of the main controversy. It also explains that the bank could require enhanced due diligence and refuse processing when later material raised sanctions-related concerns, with the writ court declining to reappreciate disputed commercial facts and no interference being made under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>