https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105068 Writ jurisdiction should not be used to re-examine disputed questions of fact, including alleged non-service, refusal of summons, or the validity of substituted service, where the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeded ex parte after repeated service attempts and publication. The High Court also held that interference was unwarranted when the statutory scheme provided an appeal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and no jurisdictional error or clear breach of natural justice was shown. The Tribunal's ex parte order and refusal to set it aside were therefore not interfered with. en-us Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:18:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105068 Writ jurisdiction should not be used to re-examine disputed questions of fact, including alleged non-service, refusal of summons, or the validity of substituted service, where the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeded ex parte after repeated service attempts and publication. The High Court also held that interference was unwarranted when the statutory scheme provided an appeal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and no jurisdictional error or clear breach of natural justice was shown. The Tribunal's ex parte order and refusal to set it aside were therefore not interfered with. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105068