https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263414 A writ challenge to a DRT interim order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because Section 18 provided an efficacious statutory appeal. The Gujarat HC also found that the order was not non-speaking merely because it did not discuss every contention in detail; it contained sufficient reasons for a prima facie stay determination. Grievances about the merits of the securitisation proceedings were matters for the statutory appeal, not for Article 226 or 227 interference. In the absence of exceptional circumstances such as a clear breach of natural justice or a total absence of reasons, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:46:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263414 A writ challenge to a DRT interim order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because Section 18 provided an efficacious statutory appeal. The Gujarat HC also found that the order was not non-speaking merely because it did not discuss every contention in detail; it contained sufficient reasons for a prima facie stay determination. Grievances about the merits of the securitisation proceedings were matters for the statutory appeal, not for Article 226 or 227 interference. In the absence of exceptional circumstances such as a clear breach of natural justice or a total absence of reasons, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263414