https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417038 A writ petition under Article 226 was not ordinarily maintainable against a private asset reconstruction company's proposed action under the SARFAESI regime because Section 17 provided an efficacious statutory remedy. The Court applied the rule of alternate remedy and self-imposed restraint in recovery matters, and found no basis to treat the company as performing a public function merely from its commercial recovery role. It also held that continued ex parte interim protection against dues far exceeding the deposit was unjustified. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed and the interim orders vacated. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2022 10:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417038 A writ petition under Article 226 was not ordinarily maintainable against a private asset reconstruction company's proposed action under the SARFAESI regime because Section 17 provided an efficacious statutory remedy. The Court applied the rule of alternate remedy and self-imposed restraint in recovery matters, and found no basis to treat the company as performing a public function merely from its commercial recovery role. It also held that continued ex parte interim protection against dues far exceeding the deposit was unjustified. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed and the interim orders vacated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417038