https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422819 A writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy existed under Section 17. The High Court followed its earlier decisions on the same controversy and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the face of the alternative remedy. It also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the SARFAESI Act provide cumulative remedies to a secured creditor, so the existence of an arbitration clause or proceedings under Section 9 did not bar SARFAESI action. The petitioners' authorities were distinguished on their different statutory context. en-us Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 May 2022 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422819 A writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy existed under Section 17. The High Court followed its earlier decisions on the same controversy and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the face of the alternative remedy. It also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the SARFAESI Act provide cumulative remedies to a secured creditor, so the existence of an arbitration clause or proceedings under Section 9 did not bar SARFAESI action. The petitioners' authorities were distinguished on their different statutory context. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422819