https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109396 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal under the securitisation law, particularly where the appellate forum can consider waiver or reduction of the deposit requirement. The petition also raised disputed questions of fact and contractual or guarantor liability arising from a mortgage arrangement, which were matters for the statutory appellate forum rather than writ adjudication. The High Court therefore held the writ petition not maintainable and dismissed it in view of the available alternative remedy. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:38:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109396 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal under the securitisation law, particularly where the appellate forum can consider waiver or reduction of the deposit requirement. The petition also raised disputed questions of fact and contractual or guarantor liability arising from a mortgage arrangement, which were matters for the statutory appellate forum rather than writ adjudication. The High Court therefore held the writ petition not maintainable and dismissed it in view of the available alternative remedy. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109396