https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302529 Where a statutory remedy is available under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, the High Court declined to examine a writ challenge to refusal of the highest auction bid and forfeiture of security. The Court noted that the Development Authority had acted on alleged non-compliance with auction terms, including a shortfall in the required deposit and an existing restraint on third-party rights. Exercising judicial restraint, it held that the petitioner should first approach the State Government under the statutory remedy, dismissed the writ petition, and granted liberty to pursue that forum. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302529 Where a statutory remedy is available under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, the High Court declined to examine a writ challenge to refusal of the highest auction bid and forfeiture of security. The Court noted that the Development Authority had acted on alleged non-compliance with auction terms, including a shortfall in the required deposit and an existing restraint on third-party rights. Exercising judicial restraint, it held that the petitioner should first approach the State Government under the statutory remedy, dismissed the writ petition, and granted liberty to pursue that forum. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302529