https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337043 A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy under section 17 was available and had already been invoked before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal was competent to examine the dispute, including issues concerning leasehold rights and valuation, and the amended section 17 permitted consideration of such matters. In the absence of any shown jurisdictional error, the High Court would ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction in recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. The petition was therefore rejected, with the merits left for adjudication before the Tribunal. en-us Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337043 A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy under section 17 was available and had already been invoked before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal was competent to examine the dispute, including issues concerning leasehold rights and valuation, and the amended section 17 permitted consideration of such matters. In the absence of any shown jurisdictional error, the High Court would ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction in recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. The petition was therefore rejected, with the merits left for adjudication before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337043