https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432479 Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a common judgment merely because certain factual particulars require correction, where those corrections do not affect the core reasoning or substantive rights. Disputed issues about prior attachment by the Income-tax Department, the alleged void nature of a mortgage under section 281, and priority of charge were treated as questions of fact and statutory remedy, not matters for writ review under Article 226. The court held that such disputes must be pursued before the DRT under the SARFAESI framework, with sections 17, 34 and 35 preserving the statutory forum and overriding effect. The review petitions were therefore rejected and the parties were left to raise their pleas before the appropriate forum. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jan 2023 09:35:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432479 Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a common judgment merely because certain factual particulars require correction, where those corrections do not affect the core reasoning or substantive rights. Disputed issues about prior attachment by the Income-tax Department, the alleged void nature of a mortgage under section 281, and priority of charge were treated as questions of fact and statutory remedy, not matters for writ review under Article 226. The court held that such disputes must be pursued before the DRT under the SARFAESI framework, with sections 17, 34 and 35 preserving the statutory forum and overriding effect. The review petitions were therefore rejected and the parties were left to raise their pleas before the appropriate forum. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432479