https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113359 An efficacious statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ordinarily bars writ intervention in challenges to secured asset sales based on undervaluation, especially where disputed factual questions arise; the petitions were therefore not maintainable and the parties were left to pursue the statutory mechanism. A sale conducted under the Securitisation Act was also not rendered a nullity merely because a Gujarat High Court ruling on section 23 of the Contract Act had reached a different result on materially distinct facts involving assignment of debts. The alleged undervaluation did not invalidate the sale, while claims to participate in sale proceeds were preserved under the pari passu distribution mechanism. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113359 An efficacious statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ordinarily bars writ intervention in challenges to secured asset sales based on undervaluation, especially where disputed factual questions arise; the petitions were therefore not maintainable and the parties were left to pursue the statutory mechanism. A sale conducted under the Securitisation Act was also not rendered a nullity merely because a Gujarat High Court ruling on section 23 of the Contract Act had reached a different result on materially distinct facts involving assignment of debts. The alleged undervaluation did not invalidate the sale, while claims to participate in sale proceeds were preserved under the pari passu distribution mechanism. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113359