https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336556 Where the existence of a valid security interest was itself in doubt and the petitioner was not shown to be a borrower or guarantor, the SARFAESI jurisdictional bar under Section 34 did not apply. The court reasoned that a third party in possession, without an efficacious remedy under Section 17, cannot be left without a forum to contest action against the property. The petitioner was therefore entitled to seek adjudication before the competent civil court. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:51:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336556 Where the existence of a valid security interest was itself in doubt and the petitioner was not shown to be a borrower or guarantor, the SARFAESI jurisdictional bar under Section 34 did not apply. The court reasoned that a third party in possession, without an efficacious remedy under Section 17, cannot be left without a forum to contest action against the property. The petitioner was therefore entitled to seek adjudication before the competent civil court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336556