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 the SARFAESI measures and notice under section 13(4) was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under section 17 and the withdrawal of the impugned notice.
Analysis: The impugned notice under section 13(4) had been withdrawn by the secured creditor, so the immediate challenge to that notice did not survive. The Court also held that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to raise all their objections, including the contention that the reply to the objections under section 13(3A) had been communicated through an advocate. In such matters involving recovery of bank dues, the writ court should ordinarily not entertain the petition when the statutory appellate remedy is available.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the remedy under section 17.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the SARFAESI challenge and directed the parties to the statutory appellate mechanism.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal under the SARFAESI Act is available, and the impugned measure has been withdrawn, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to decide the merits of the challenge.
TaxTMI 
