https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110731 A writ challenge to a Securitisation Act notice under section 13(2) is premature because the notice is only a show-cause step, objections may be considered under section 13(3A), and statutory remedies remain available after any measure under section 13(4). The section 31(i) exemption for agricultural land is to be construed narrowly and cannot be claimed merely because land is described as cultivable; on the facts, the material did not establish that the secured asset fell within that exemption. Disputed questions about the character and use of the land were factual matters unsuited to writ jurisdiction under article 226 when statutory remedies were available. The notice was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:16:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110731 A writ challenge to a Securitisation Act notice under section 13(2) is premature because the notice is only a show-cause step, objections may be considered under section 13(3A), and statutory remedies remain available after any measure under section 13(4). The section 31(i) exemption for agricultural land is to be construed narrowly and cannot be claimed merely because land is described as cultivable; on the facts, the material did not establish that the secured asset fell within that exemption. Disputed questions about the character and use of the land were factual matters unsuited to writ jurisdiction under article 226 when statutory remedies were available. The notice was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110731