https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213491 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that section 17 provides a complete remedial mechanism and that the expression "any person" is wide enough to cover persons affected by a secured creditor's action. Because proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner was required to pursue that statutory forum rather than bypass it. Applying the principle of self-imposed restraint in bank recovery matters, the HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. en-us Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2012 08:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213491 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that section 17 provides a complete remedial mechanism and that the expression "any person" is wide enough to cover persons affected by a secured creditor's action. Because proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner was required to pursue that statutory forum rather than bypass it. Applying the principle of self-imposed restraint in bank recovery matters, the HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213491