TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the possession notice under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
Analysis: The writ petition attacked the notice issued under Section 13(4)(a) of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the transaction was not a loan and that the statutory prerequisites of a secured creditor, secured debt and security interest were absent. The Court found from the term loan-cum-hypothecation agreement that the petitioner had entered into a borrowing arrangement for purchase of the asset. It held that such objections, including questions on the nature of the debt and the legality of the secured creditor's action, could be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Relying on the settled rule of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction, the Court held that an effective statutory remedy existed and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the SARFAESI possession notice did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction because the statute provided an efficacious adjudicatory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, a writ petition challenging measures under Section 13(4)(a) should ordinarily not be entertained under Article 226 absent exceptional circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
