<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1444 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469952</link>
    <description>Mandamus cannot be used to compel legislation or policy-making in the absence of an existing statutory public duty, so the prayer to frame and implement a cryptocurrency regulatory framework was declined. A direction for SIT or CBI investigation is an exceptional remedy requiring prima facie material and exceptional circumstances; none was shown, so that request was rejected. Claims for release of funds and compensation were not entertained in writ jurisdiction because they turned on disputed questions of fact, required evidence and cross-examination, and arose from private law disputes rather than public duties. The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue monetary claims before the appropriate forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:23:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1444 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469952</link>
      <description>Mandamus cannot be used to compel legislation or policy-making in the absence of an existing statutory public duty, so the prayer to frame and implement a cryptocurrency regulatory framework was declined. A direction for SIT or CBI investigation is an exceptional remedy requiring prima facie material and exceptional circumstances; none was shown, so that request was rejected. Claims for release of funds and compensation were not entertained in writ jurisdiction because they turned on disputed questions of fact, required evidence and cross-examination, and arose from private law disputes rather than public duties. The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue monetary claims before the appropriate forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>