https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263783 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass or duplicate efficacious remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act when the borrower has already invoked the DRT and DRAT mechanisms. A petition challenging measures under sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 was treated as forum shopping and an attempt to obstruct recovery, because it sought overlapping discretionary reliefs in multiple proceedings concerning the same asset. The HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it as an abuse of process, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available before the competent fora. en-us Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263783 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass or duplicate efficacious remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act when the borrower has already invoked the DRT and DRAT mechanisms. A petition challenging measures under sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 was treated as forum shopping and an attempt to obstruct recovery, because it sought overlapping discretionary reliefs in multiple proceedings concerning the same asset. The HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it as an abuse of process, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available before the competent fora. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263783