TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nubhav Upadhyay, Advocate for R-9 (CBI). Mr. Rohan Kothari and Ms. Shivani Pegatraju, Advocates for R-11 to R-13. TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 34471/2026 (Condonation of Delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 59 days in refiling the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 2. The Application stands disposed of. LPA 393/2026 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 ("Impugned Judgment") passed in W.P.(C) 197/2025 titled as 'Aditya Malhotra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.' ("Writ Petition"), whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of, inter alia, by placing reliance upon the decision in Rana Handa v. BitBNS Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Neut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the affected users on the National Cyber Crime Portal. 4.5. Thereafter, the Appellants instituted the Writ Petition seeking, inter alia, 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 investor protection. 2. Direct the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) (Respondent No. 9) to register a FIR and investigate thoroughly the financial fraud, cyberattack, fund mismanagement and operational lapses at BitBNS. 3. Direct any of the Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining to regulatory inaction, statutory oversight, and systemic failure affecting a substantial number of investors across the country, thereby disclosing clear public law elements warranting examination under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5.2. The learned Single Judge further erred in holding that Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 were not amenable to writ jurisdiction, without examining whether entities operating in a financial domain involving public funds, interfacing with regulated banking channels, and affecting a large class of investors would attract public law scrutiny by reason of the nature of their functions. 5.3. The Impugned Judgment erred in observing that no exceptional circumstances had been made out for directing an invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, governed by private law. Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 are private entities and do not fall within the definition of 'State' or instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. 6.2. The issues raised in the Writ Petition substantially overlap with those adjudicated in Rana Handa (supra), and the learned Single Judge was justified in relying upon the said decision while disposing of the Writ Petition. The allegations of fraud and financial irregularities involve disputed questions of fact which would require appreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6.3. No exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direction for investigation by the CBI or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fected. 10. We are in complete agreement with the said view and find no reason to take a different view in the present matter. Prayer No. 4 seeks release of the Appellants' funds and lifting of withdrawal restrictions. Grant of such relief would require a factual determination as to the amount, if any, actually standing to the credit of each individual investor, and to further examine whether the restrictions imposed after the Public Statement were in the nature of a protective measure or constituted mismanagement. These are disputed questions of fact which are not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings. 11. Prayer No. 5 seeks compensation for losses allegedly occasioned by fraud and mismanagement on the part of Respondent Nos. ....