It is now a simple reminder that we must stop making excuses for contempt and ignorance in our field. You can`t not hold on. 9. This is not an independent act of ICICI Bank, but a circular of RBI, the 2nd respondent, which is undoubtedly an instrument of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The applicants therefore do not require ICICI Bank to act in a particular manner that violates the RBI Guidelines or Guidelines, but rather an interpretation of those circulars and guidelines that apply to the moratorium period in order to bind ICICI Bank. What is being questioned here is a directive or set of directives issued by an instrument of the state – the RBI – and what the petitioners are looking for is an interpretation of these guidelines and circulars in order to bring them into line with their stated purpose. (emphasis added) The meaning of the first prayer may be questionable, but there is no doubt that the second prayer was requested as a mandamus against a private entity not covered by Article 12 of the Constitution. Of course, ICICI raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of Transcon`s request. With respect to a creative arrangement of facilities in favour of Transcon, the Court issued an injunction ordering ICICI to exclude from the calculation of the 90-day NPA reporting period the period during which they constitute an overlap between the standstill period and the national hold, thus giving Transcon time to regularize its defaulted payments after the blocking is lifted. The question of maintaining the petition was left open for a decision at a later date. The author submits that such a court order goes beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
First, the author will explain the context of the dispute, as he played a central role in shaping the tribunal`s decision. In this part, the author will analyze the issue of maintainability, while leaving other challenges for the next part. First, the Court should have considered the issue of maintainability as a precursor to the granting of interim injunctions, which essentially resulted in the substance of what Transcon sought in the context of prayer (d) in conjunction with prayer clause (b) of its application. The Tribunal`s jurisdiction to adjudicate Transcon`s application was challenged by ICICI not on the basis of a procedural defect, but on the basis of a substantial procedural defect related to the Court`s inherent lack of jurisdiction to exercise the public remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution against ICICI. The court even noted that Justice Bhat`s decision fills in the gaps in Justice Rao`s and Justice Gupta`s reasoning for developing a workable test. At first, he seems to avoid the issue of maintainability, noting that in terms of maintainability, Rao J and Gupta J don`t seem to add much, other than to claim that a law can be challenged to violate the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, which are seen as a necessary corollary of the rule of law. This concept derives from equality and section 14. It is argued that such observations appear to show a rather vague and subjective approach, where each individual violation can be linked to the rule of law and equality clause in order to invoke jurisdiction. If such an approach is regarded as the criterion for admitting a written request under Article 32, the breach of a legal obligation would also be contrary to the rule of law and the court should not hesitate to admit such a request. The postulates of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary have various components that extend throughout the constitution. The court should intervene in an article 32 case only if any of these elements are directly apparent from the text of Part III or are inextricably linked to it. Consideration of a case involving Smt.
GangaBai v. Vijay Kumar and others AIR 1974 SC 1126 will show that a limitation action can also be brought, as there is no law that states that a limitation action cannot be brought. In this case, it has been stated in the paragraph that there is an inherent right of any person to bring an action of a civil nature, and if a suit is not a law, an action of one`s choice may be brought at his own risk. An action for its maintainability does not require legal authorization, and it is sufficient that no law prevents the action. But the situation with regard to the appeal is exactly the opposite. The right to appeal is not inherent to anyone and, therefore, an appeal to its maintainability must have the clear authority of the law. This explains why the appeal campaign is called a creature of the law. In this context, another case of Hardesh Ores P. Ltd. v. Hede and company, 2008 (I) MPLJ 30.
(SC) deserves to be studied. The reasoning of the judgment was followed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Himanshu Madanlal Shah v. B.M. Poojari, FA No. 1516/2005, decision rendered on 22.09.2005 A party taking legal action can expect the consequences, but it is certainly not an obstacle to filing a lawsuit. It is necessary to prohibit the filing of a lawsuit in a civil court if a law prohibits it. Thus, a plaintiff brings an action for division of some of the property in a civil court, such a suit is certainly not precluded by any applicable law. An action for partition is definitively taxable by a civil court. The question may arise as to whether the action for the division of certain parcels can be maintained without including the rest of the real estate.