https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108410 A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was not maintainable where the challenge to a Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice depended on disputed factual questions about repayment, timing, and extent of dues. The High Court held that such issues cannot be tried in writ jurisdiction because the court is not a fact-finding forum, and the borrower must pursue the statutory mechanism and satisfy the bank regarding liquidation of dues. Absent any jurisdictional or vires-based challenge, the notice could not be assailed merely as factually incorrect or on the basis that the bank should have acted differently on the materials produced. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108410 A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was not maintainable where the challenge to a Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice depended on disputed factual questions about repayment, timing, and extent of dues. The High Court held that such issues cannot be tried in writ jurisdiction because the court is not a fact-finding forum, and the borrower must pursue the statutory mechanism and satisfy the bank regarding liquidation of dues. Absent any jurisdictional or vires-based challenge, the notice could not be assailed merely as factually incorrect or on the basis that the bank should have acted differently on the materials produced. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108410