https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344336 Article 226 extends to private bodies only where the impugned action involves a public law element or discharge of a public or statutory duty. A private commercial lender issuing a loan in an ordinary lending transaction is not amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because it is regulated or has indirect governmental links. Where the dispute concerns secured lending, the SARFAESI Act supplies a complete statutory mechanism, including objections to notice, consideration of representation, and recourse to the Debt Recovery Tribunal after enforcement measures. The borrower must therefore pursue the statutory remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction against a private secured creditor. en-us Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:05:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344336 Article 226 extends to private bodies only where the impugned action involves a public law element or discharge of a public or statutory duty. A private commercial lender issuing a loan in an ordinary lending transaction is not amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because it is regulated or has indirect governmental links. Where the dispute concerns secured lending, the SARFAESI Act supplies a complete statutory mechanism, including objections to notice, consideration of representation, and recourse to the Debt Recovery Tribunal after enforcement measures. The borrower must therefore pursue the statutory remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction against a private secured creditor. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344336