TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri, Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Ms. Shivani Pegatraju, Advocates for R11, R12 & R13. Mr. Anupam S Sharrma with Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Ripudamn Sharma, Mr. Vashisht Rao, Ms. Riya Sachdeva & Ms. Amisha P Dash, Advocates. Mr Aditya Verma with Ms Parkhi Rai & Mr K Rigved Prasad, Advocates for applicant in CM APPL. 46272/2025. Mr. Dipan Sethi with Mr. Snehashish Bhattacharya, Advs. for RBI. JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition is for the following reliefs: "1. Mandate the SEBI (response), Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Electronics and IT to implement a regulatory framework and policies regulate cryptocurrency exchanges and transactions to ensure invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Internet Private Limited (Respondent No. 11) and its promoters. The Petitioners contend that the Respondent's conduct amounts to a breach of trust, financial mismanagement, and fraudulent practices, leading to substantial economic losses and undue distress to thousands of Indian cryptocurrency investors." 3. In this writ petition, the relief prayed for is overwhelmingly similar to the reliefs prayed for in W.P. (C) 1928/2026. The reliefs in the said writ petition read as under: "a). Pass an Order directing the Respondent No.2, Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4, Respondent No.8, Respondent No.9 to take steps to implement stricter policies pertaining to the workings of cryptocurrency exchanges dealing in Virtual Digital Assets;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, wherein it was held that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate an offence is valid in law. However, the Court emphasised that although Article 226 of the Constitution confers wide powers on the High Courts, such powers must be exercised with great caution. An order directing the CBI to conduct an investigation should not be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has made allegations against the local police. The Court clarified that this extraordinary power must be invoked sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances where such intervention is truly warranted. 8. Furthermore, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Utta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 13 are not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They are not discharging any public functions. They, therefore, are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court." 7. Similarly, qua Prayer (A) in W.P. (C) 1928/2026, which is similar to Prayer 1 in the instant petition, this Court held: "12. Prayer (A) relates to a direction for implementation and framing of stricter policies pertaining to the working of cryptocurrency exchanges dealing in virtual digital assets. 13. A bare perusal of Prayer (A) and Prayer (B) appear to be inconsistent with each other. The petitioner cannot, in one breath, ask for framing of policy, law and regulations to address the situation faced by him and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said prayer seeks for the award of compensation to purportedly affected petitioners and users who have suffered financial losses due to the alleged mismanagement and fraudulent activities of Respondent no. 12 (one Mr. Gaurav Dahake) and Respondent no. 13 (one Mr/ Prashant Kumar Singh). 9. If the said prayer is read with the averments made in the petition, particularly those reproduced in para. 2 of this order, it would become clear that the present petition has private law origins, and would require the Court to delve into disputed question of facts. The determination of compensation, requires, at the threshold, a conclusion on liability. It is only when liability for a purported wrongdoing is established, that the question of compens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove, fall exclusively in the domain of private law and are fundamentally contractual in nature. There is no element of public law that this court finds involved in the present petition. The mere fact that the parties engaging in the contract are State or its instrumentalities, does not in itself make the issue relevant to public law. There is no determination of the rights relating to public law, nor is there a consideration relating to the public at large that needs to be factored in while deciding the dispute so argued by the parties. Issuance of the BGs by the petitioner at the instance of respondent no. 2 in the favour of respondent no. 3 and its encashment is purely governed by the terms of the BGs. The same is the commercial wisdom o....