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 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available against the order passed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction. Where a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal, the party is ordinarily required to exhaust that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. Interference may be justified only in exceptional situations such as violation of natural justice, jurisdictional defect, or other recognized exceptional grounds. In the present matter, the petitioners had a statutory appellate remedy against the impugned order and also sought to raise disputed questions of fact, which further militated against exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy, and interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition should ordinarily not be entertained when an effective statutory appellate remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing the statutory forum.