https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437324 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be used to challenge SARFAESI measures under Section 13(4) when an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 was available, so the auction challenge could not be sustained in writ proceedings. A claimant under an agreement to sell executed during pending tribunal proceedings, without permission of the bank or tribunal and treated as void, could not invoke Section 13(8) to obstruct a completed auction. The auction purchaser's entitlement to completion of sale was upheld, and the amounts deposited by the writ petitioner were directed to be returned with interest. en-us Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 May 2023 21:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437324 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be used to challenge SARFAESI measures under Section 13(4) when an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 was available, so the auction challenge could not be sustained in writ proceedings. A claimant under an agreement to sell executed during pending tribunal proceedings, without permission of the bank or tribunal and treated as void, could not invoke Section 13(8) to obstruct a completed auction. The auction purchaser's entitlement to completion of sale was upheld, and the amounts deposited by the writ petitioner were directed to be returned with interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437324