https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114073 A writ petition under Article 226 remained maintainable against a bank's action under the Securitisation Act where the challenge alleged exercise of power beyond the statute; the availability of alternate remedies did not bar review in such a case. The bank, acting as a State instrumentality, was amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the merits, the secured creditor was required under Section 13(7) to apply sale proceeds only to statutory costs and secured dues from the same enforcement transaction and then remit the residue to the entitled person. An unrelated loan transaction could not support a separate lien to withhold the surplus, and the retention justified interest on the withheld amount. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114073 A writ petition under Article 226 remained maintainable against a bank's action under the Securitisation Act where the challenge alleged exercise of power beyond the statute; the availability of alternate remedies did not bar review in such a case. The bank, acting as a State instrumentality, was amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the merits, the secured creditor was required under Section 13(7) to apply sale proceeds only to statutory costs and secured dues from the same enforcement transaction and then remit the residue to the entitled person. An unrelated loan transaction could not support a separate lien to withhold the surplus, and the retention justified interest on the withheld amount. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114073