https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275690 Where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge a possession notice, especially when the borrower did not timely pursue the remedy before the DRT and no exceptional circumstance was shown. The challenge to the possession notice was therefore not maintainable. A borrower who had transferred the secured asset in breach of mortgage conditions could not compel the bank to extend a one-time settlement, particularly where the scheme excluded fraud, malfeasance, and wilful default. The request for mandamus directing settlement was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275690 Where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge a possession notice, especially when the borrower did not timely pursue the remedy before the DRT and no exceptional circumstance was shown. The challenge to the possession notice was therefore not maintainable. A borrower who had transferred the secured asset in breach of mortgage conditions could not compel the bank to extend a one-time settlement, particularly where the scheme excluded fraud, malfeasance, and wilful default. The request for mandamus directing settlement was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275690