https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271938 An interim restraint that prevented enforcement of secured creditor rights justified restitution, because a party should not suffer from an act of the Court and the aggrieved party must be restored to the position it would have occupied but for the order. The High Court held that mandamus could issue under Article 226 to secure police assistance for implementation of final, uncomplied court directions, including removal of machinery and restoration of exclusive control over the secured premises. The existence of remedies under the SARFAESI Act did not bar writ relief where the dispute concerned enforcement of settled orders rather than fresh adjudication of title or possession. The prayers were not self-contradictory and relief could be moulded accordingly. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:04:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271938 An interim restraint that prevented enforcement of secured creditor rights justified restitution, because a party should not suffer from an act of the Court and the aggrieved party must be restored to the position it would have occupied but for the order. The High Court held that mandamus could issue under Article 226 to secure police assistance for implementation of final, uncomplied court directions, including removal of machinery and restoration of exclusive control over the secured premises. The existence of remedies under the SARFAESI Act did not bar writ relief where the dispute concerned enforcement of settled orders rather than fresh adjudication of title or possession. The prayers were not self-contradictory and relief could be moulded accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271938