https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430927 Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate where the challenge lay to auction action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the Debt Recovery Tribunal was competent to examine the secured creditor's action under sections 13(2), 13(4) and the connected remedies under section 17. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory forum. The Court also applied the clean hands principle and held that suppression of prior litigation and incomplete disclosure of material facts amounted to abuse of the writ process, justifying refusal of relief and dismissal with costs. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2022 06:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430927 Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate where the challenge lay to auction action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the Debt Recovery Tribunal was competent to examine the secured creditor's action under sections 13(2), 13(4) and the connected remedies under section 17. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory forum. The Court also applied the clean hands principle and held that suppression of prior litigation and incomplete disclosure of material facts amounted to abuse of the writ process, justifying refusal of relief and dismissal with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430927