https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338033 Allegations that a de-registration order was obtained by fraud or without notice were said to depend on disputed facts, including service and dispatch records, and therefore were not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the availability of an appeal also weighed against interference. The text further explains that, after de-registration and in the context of SARFAESI enforcement, section 22 of SICA does not bar a secured creditor from pursuing recovery measures, because the later statute gives overriding effect to enforcement under section 13(4), subject to the position on multiple secured creditors. The petitioner was therefore unable to rely on SICA to stop recovery action. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:19:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338033 Allegations that a de-registration order was obtained by fraud or without notice were said to depend on disputed facts, including service and dispatch records, and therefore were not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the availability of an appeal also weighed against interference. The text further explains that, after de-registration and in the context of SARFAESI enforcement, section 22 of SICA does not bar a secured creditor from pursuing recovery measures, because the later statute gives overriding effect to enforcement under section 13(4), subject to the position on multiple secured creditors. The petitioner was therefore unable to rely on SICA to stop recovery action. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338033