https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327841 A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI framework was held not maintainable because the measure followed the stage of Section 13(4) and fell within the statutory remedy under Section 17(1). The High Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, particularly in bank recovery matters. The challenge to the Section 14 proceedings was therefore required to be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy. en-us Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2016 13:21:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327841 A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI framework was held not maintainable because the measure followed the stage of Section 13(4) and fell within the statutory remedy under Section 17(1). The High Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, particularly in bank recovery matters. The challenge to the Section 14 proceedings was therefore required to be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327841