https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200115 Availability of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where the challenge alleges breach of statutory safeguards and natural justice. A secured creditor must consider a borrower's representation made in response to a demand notice under Section 13(2) and, if it is not accepted, communicate written reasons within the prescribed time before taking measures under Section 13(4). Failure to give such written response vitiates the enforcement action, as the safeguard under Section 13(3A) is mandatory. The impugned notice was therefore invalid, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision and communication to the borrower. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:26:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200115 Availability of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where the challenge alleges breach of statutory safeguards and natural justice. A secured creditor must consider a borrower's representation made in response to a demand notice under Section 13(2) and, if it is not accepted, communicate written reasons within the prescribed time before taking measures under Section 13(4). Failure to give such written response vitiates the enforcement action, as the safeguard under Section 13(3A) is mandatory. The impugned notice was therefore invalid, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision and communication to the borrower. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200115