https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197316 Writ petitions challenging SARFAESI notices were held to be not maintainable where the Act provides an effective statutory remedy under section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be used sparingly in recovery matters. The article also states that section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act did not bar action under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI, because the later special enactment prevails and a pending BIFR reference abates automatically once secured creditors representing not less than three-fourth in value take measures under section 13(4). It further notes that waiver requires clear intentional relinquishment, which was not shown on the facts. en-us Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:26:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197316 Writ petitions challenging SARFAESI notices were held to be not maintainable where the Act provides an effective statutory remedy under section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be used sparingly in recovery matters. The article also states that section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act did not bar action under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI, because the later special enactment prevails and a pending BIFR reference abates automatically once secured creditors representing not less than three-fourth in value take measures under section 13(4). It further notes that waiver requires clear intentional relinquishment, which was not shown on the facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197316