https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354604 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked against SARFAESI recovery measures when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under Section 17 before the DRT and Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reiterated that the alternate remedy rule applies with particular force in recovery of public dues, and that any exception must be specifically pleaded and supported by recognised grounds. Allegations of natural justice violation were found vague and unparticularised. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained, and the interim stay on recovery proceedings was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354604 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked against SARFAESI recovery measures when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under Section 17 before the DRT and Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reiterated that the alternate remedy rule applies with particular force in recovery of public dues, and that any exception must be specifically pleaded and supported by recognised grounds. Allegations of natural justice violation were found vague and unparticularised. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained, and the interim stay on recovery proceedings was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354604