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 an under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, and whether the existence of an arbitration clause and proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred recourse to SARFAESI proceedings.
Analysis: The writ petition was directed against an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The availability of a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was treated as an efficacious alternative remedy, and earlier decisions of the Court on identical controversy were followed. The reasoning also accepted the position that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the SARFAESI Act provide cumulative remedies to a secured creditor, and that the existence of an arbitration clause or invocation of Section 9 does not by itself preclude proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The authorities relied on by the petitioners were distinguished as dealing with different statutory settings.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the face of the alternative statutory remedy, and the challenge to SARFAESI proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause failed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioners were required to pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court will ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction, and the availability of arbitration proceedings does not bar simultaneous recourse to SARFAESI remedies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
