TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Analysis: The challenge was to a notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the secured creditor had already taken symbolic possession. The Court held that at the stage of measures under Section 13(4), and even thereafter, the borrower has an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Applying the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when an effective statutory remedy exists, especially in matters of recovery by banks and financial institutions, the Court declined to entertain the petition and left all contentions open for the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against SARFAESI measures, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference under Article 226 and require exhaustion of the statutory remedy first.
TaxTMI 
