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: (i) Whether writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 13(2) or Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under the Act.
Analysis: The petitions were directed against measures initiated by secured creditors under the SARFAESI regime. The existence of a complete statutory mechanism, including recourse before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court also noted that RBI-related grievances could be examined in the statutory process and that the settled law discourages interference under Article 226 where an efficacious alternative remedy is available, particularly in matters concerning recovery by banks and financial institutions.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable and the challenge to the SARFAESI notices was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions on the ground that the petitioners must pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 challenging measures taken under Section 13(2) or Section 13(4) of the Act.