https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431031 Where a Recovery Officer's order confirming sale and possession notice is challenged, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised if Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides an effective appeal and the underlying DRT judgment and award have attained finality. The High Court found no exceptional ground to bypass the statutory remedy, and the recovery proceedings were treated as consequential to the final tribunal order. The plea of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was rejected because no extension of moratorium was shown and no clear subsisting jurisdictional defect was established. The writ petition was held not maintainable, leaving the recovery proceedings undisturbed. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Dec 2022 08:56:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431031 Where a Recovery Officer's order confirming sale and possession notice is challenged, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised if Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides an effective appeal and the underlying DRT judgment and award have attained finality. The High Court found no exceptional ground to bypass the statutory remedy, and the recovery proceedings were treated as consequential to the final tribunal order. The plea of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was rejected because no extension of moratorium was shown and no clear subsisting jurisdictional defect was established. The writ petition was held not maintainable, leaving the recovery proceedings undisturbed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 25 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431031