https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326108 A writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was held ordinarily not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The challenge concerned a notice under Section 13(4) and symbolic possession already taken by the secured creditor; the Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists, particularly in bank recovery matters. The petition was therefore declined and the borrowers were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with all contentions left open for the Tribunal. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:11:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326108 A writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was held ordinarily not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The challenge concerned a notice under Section 13(4) and symbolic possession already taken by the secured creditor; the Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists, particularly in bank recovery matters. The petition was therefore declined and the borrowers were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with all contentions left open for the Tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326108