https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111614 Availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a rule of judicial restraint, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. A writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained where the statute provides a complete redress mechanism, and exceptions arise only for violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or other exceptional grounds. As an effective appeal remedy under section 18 was available and no exceptional circumstance was shown, the writ petition was not maintainable. en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:10:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111614 Availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a rule of judicial restraint, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. A writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained where the statute provides a complete redress mechanism, and exceptions arise only for violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or other exceptional grounds. As an effective appeal remedy under section 18 was available and no exceptional circumstance was shown, the writ petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111614