https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273148 Under the State Financial Corporations Act, proceedings for enforcement of the Corporation's claim required the District Judge to examine the borrower's objections once cause was shown, because the statutory expression "claim" and the procedural scheme under Section 32 permit investigation of the factual basis and consequential reliefs such as variation or dissolution of attachment. The refusal to consider those objections was therefore unjustified. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, so the writ petition remained maintainable under Articles 226 and 227; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration while attachment continued until disposal. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 16:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273148 Under the State Financial Corporations Act, proceedings for enforcement of the Corporation's claim required the District Judge to examine the borrower's objections once cause was shown, because the statutory expression "claim" and the procedural scheme under Section 32 permit investigation of the factual basis and consequential reliefs such as variation or dissolution of attachment. The refusal to consider those objections was therefore unjustified. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, so the writ petition remained maintainable under Articles 226 and 227; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration while attachment continued until disposal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273148