TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 a writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17(6) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for seeking expeditious disposal and enforcement of the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order passed in proceedings arising from measures under Section 13(4) of the said Act.
Analysis: The relief sought was to compel compliance with the Debts Recovery Tribunal's interim order directing restoration of possession of one room on deposit of a specified amount. The challenge related to steps taken under Section 13(4), which formed part of the measures contemplated under Section 17(1). Since Section 17(6) provides a remedy before the Appellate Tribunal where the Debts Recovery Tribunal does not dispose of the application within the prescribed period, the statutory scheme supplied an alternate forum for seeking expeditious disposal and consequential relief. On that basis, invocation of writ jurisdiction was held to be inappropriate.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners were required to avail the remedy under Section 17(6) of the Act.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on the ground that the statute provided an adequate appellate remedy for securing expeditious adjudication and related relief in SARFAESI proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory mechanism exists to seek expeditious disposal before the Appellate Tribunal, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to enforce or accelerate proceedings arising from measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
TaxTMI 
