https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398144 The article explains that a guarantor's writ challenge to SARFAESI recovery measures was not entertained because an effective statutory remedy was available before the DRT or NCLT. It also notes the settled position that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to a personal guarantor. On the separate prayer for a mandamus to compel disposal of a complaint before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the issue had become infructuous because the complaint had already been examined and closed. The proceedings were therefore closed without further adjudication of the underlying insolvency or recovery disputes. en-us Thu, 03 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Mar 2021 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398144 The article explains that a guarantor's writ challenge to SARFAESI recovery measures was not entertained because an effective statutory remedy was available before the DRT or NCLT. It also notes the settled position that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to a personal guarantor. On the separate prayer for a mandamus to compel disposal of a complaint before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the issue had become infructuous because the complaint had already been examined and closed. The proceedings were therefore closed without further adjudication of the underlying insolvency or recovery disputes. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 03 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398144