https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188710 A Debts Recovery Tribunal can restore possession of secured assets only after a merits-based finding that measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are not in accordance with law, and it cannot order interim redelivery on equitable grounds or by relying on the general procedure under the DRT Act. The phrase "as far as may be" in Section 17(7) does not override the Act's special scheme. The rule of alternative remedy is discretionary, so writ interference remains available where the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and unsupported by reasons. Engagement of security personnel and recovery of their expenses is authorised by Section 13(7) and Rule 8(4). en-us Mon, 28 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:00:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188710 A Debts Recovery Tribunal can restore possession of secured assets only after a merits-based finding that measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are not in accordance with law, and it cannot order interim redelivery on equitable grounds or by relying on the general procedure under the DRT Act. The phrase "as far as may be" in Section 17(7) does not override the Act's special scheme. The rule of alternative remedy is discretionary, so writ interference remains available where the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and unsupported by reasons. Engagement of security personnel and recovery of their expenses is authorised by Section 13(7) and Rule 8(4). Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188710