Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the SARFAESI notice was maintainable in view of the available statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Analysis: The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge a notice issued in recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI framework. The Court noted that proceedings under the Debts Recovery Tribunal had already commenced through an original application and that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provide efficacious statutory remedies. Relying on the settled principle of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction, the Court held that such petitions are ordinarily not entertained where an effective alternative remedy exists, save in exceptional situations such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental judicial procedure, reliance on repealed provisions, or breach of natural justice.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and could not be entertained at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be exercised against SARFAESI or debt-recovery proceedings when an effective statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional jurisdictional or procedural grounds are shown.