TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition was maintainable against a notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2003 in view of the remedies provided under the statute.
Analysis: The notice under section 13(2) was held to be challengeable through the remedies available under the Act. The Court noted that the petitioners could pursue the remedies contemplated by sections 13(3) and 13(3A) and could raise all objections and place their settlement proposal before the assignee during those proceedings. In these circumstances, writ interference was declined because the statutory remedy was available and efficacious.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for availability of alternate and efficacious remedies under the Act.
TaxTMI 
