https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106507 A statutory enforcement scheme under the Ordinance was upheld because it provided notice before enforcement, appellate review under sections 17 and 18, and restitutionary relief under section 19, with power to waive or reduce the pre-deposit for recorded reasons. On that basis, the challenge under Article 14 failed, as the borrower was not left without an effective remedy. The writ petition was also held premature because no notice or enforcement action had been taken by the secured creditor, so no cause of action had arisen and the challenge was merely academic. The constitutional attack was therefore dismissed as lacking substance. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106507 A statutory enforcement scheme under the Ordinance was upheld because it provided notice before enforcement, appellate review under sections 17 and 18, and restitutionary relief under section 19, with power to waive or reduce the pre-deposit for recorded reasons. On that basis, the challenge under Article 14 failed, as the borrower was not left without an effective remedy. The writ petition was also held premature because no notice or enforcement action had been taken by the secured creditor, so no cause of action had arisen and the challenge was merely academic. The constitutional attack was therefore dismissed as lacking substance. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106507