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 writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained in a commercial recovery matter under the SARFAESI Act when an effective statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available and the Tribunal has become functional.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious mechanism for a borrower or affected person to challenge measures taken under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1), with further appeal under Section 18. The settled rule is that the High Court ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition where an effective alternate statutory remedy exists, particularly in banking and financial recovery matters. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised sparingly and only in recognized exceptions, and not as a substitute for the statutory forum. The Court reiterated that repeated interference by High Courts in SARFAESI matters frustrates the legislative object of speedy recovery.
Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been entertained once the Tribunal was functional, and the proper course was to pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: In SARFAESI recovery matters, where a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available and effective, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked, save in recognized exceptional circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
