<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (4) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326850</link>
    <description>The Chief Justice&#039;s power to constitute Benches and allocate judicial work is part of roster control, and a Single Judge may request consideration by a larger Bench when earlier precedent appears to require review; the reference and Special Bench constitution were therefore competent. Under the SARFAESI Act, a writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable against a Debts Recovery Tribunal order under Section 17 where an appeal under Section 18 is available, because the statute provides a complete appellate mechanism and writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass an efficacious remedy except in recognised exceptional cases. The earlier contrary view was treated as per incuriam, and the matter was remitted for initial consideration of maintainability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326850</link>
      <description>The Chief Justice&#039;s power to constitute Benches and allocate judicial work is part of roster control, and a Single Judge may request consideration by a larger Bench when earlier precedent appears to require review; the reference and Special Bench constitution were therefore competent. Under the SARFAESI Act, a writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable against a Debts Recovery Tribunal order under Section 17 where an appeal under Section 18 is available, because the statute provides a complete appellate mechanism and writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass an efficacious remedy except in recognised exceptional cases. The earlier contrary view was treated as per incuriam, and the matter was remitted for initial consideration of maintainability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>