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 measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under Section 17.
Analysis: The petition challenged the classification of the account as non-performing asset and the consequential measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that these objections involved disputed questions of fact and accounting details, which could be effectively examined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It further held that the statutory appeal under Section 17 is an efficacious remedy, with power in the Tribunal to examine the measures taken and restore possession if the aggrieved party succeeds. In such matters, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction when a special statutory forum is available.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected in view of the alternative remedy under Section 17.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the High Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: When an effective statutory remedy is available against SARFAESI measures, the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226, especially where the dispute involves factual issues capable of determination by the statutory tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
