https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126984 An efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ordinarily bars writ intervention under Article 226, and no exceptional circumstances were shown to bypass that forum; the petitioners were therefore relegated to the remedy under Section 17(1). The transfer of secured debts and underlying securities between financial entities, and then to the secured creditor enforcing SARFAESI measures, was treated as legally valid because the statutory definitions of financial asset, security interest and secured creditor permit such assignment, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not prohibit it, and the RBI material supported the transaction. The challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126984 An efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ordinarily bars writ intervention under Article 226, and no exceptional circumstances were shown to bypass that forum; the petitioners were therefore relegated to the remedy under Section 17(1). The transfer of secured debts and underlying securities between financial entities, and then to the secured creditor enforcing SARFAESI measures, was treated as legally valid because the statutory definitions of financial asset, security interest and secured creditor permit such assignment, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not prohibit it, and the RBI material supported the transaction. The challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126984