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 writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked despite the statutory appellate remedy under the recovery legislation, on the ground that the Debt Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because of the bar under SICA.
Analysis: The availability of a statutory appeal under the recovery statute, together with the scheme of adjudication and recovery before the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the appellate forum was competent to examine the plea that proceedings were barred by SICA and to consider both jurisdictional and merits-based objections. In matters involving recovery of public dues, the rule of alternate remedy applies with greater force, and writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to bypass the statutory machinery.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy, and the challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was left to be pursued before the appellate forum.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a comprehensive statutory appellate remedy exists, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ intervention even on a jurisdictional challenge, if the same objection can be effectively raised before the appellate authority.