https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111231 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal under section 17 and the borrower has not pursued it with reasonable diligence. The bank had issued notice, taken possession of the secured asset and moved to sale, yet the petitioners did not avail the available appellate remedy at those stages. Their challenge was also raised belatedly, after the auction process had progressed and a highest bidder had already been selected. On those facts, the High Court treated the writ petition as unwarranted and held it not maintainable. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:33:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111231 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal under section 17 and the borrower has not pursued it with reasonable diligence. The bank had issued notice, taken possession of the secured asset and moved to sale, yet the petitioners did not avail the available appellate remedy at those stages. Their challenge was also raised belatedly, after the auction process had progressed and a highest bidder had already been selected. On those facts, the High Court treated the writ petition as unwarranted and held it not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111231