Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of that Act.
Analysis: The impugned action related to the measures adopted by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act. The borrower had an efficacious remedy before the Tribunal under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to examine whether the measures taken are in accordance with the Act and Rules and to declare them invalid and restore possession if necessary. Since the petitioner had already availed that remedy, and no special feature warranting bypass of the statutory mechanism was shown, interference in writ jurisdiction was not justified.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the respondents, leaving the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Tribunal.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and held that the statutory appellate framework under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued for challenging the creditor's measures.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act to challenge measures taken by the secured creditor, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to bypass that remedy.