https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751285 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked against measures taken under the SARFAESI Act when an effective statutory remedy is available, and that rule applies with particular force in bank recovery matters. The recognised exceptions, including lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other fundamental procedural defects, were not established on the facts. A confirmed auction sale, once registered, created rights in favour of the auction purchaser and could not be reopened at an advanced stage absent fraud or collusion. The High Court's interference with the DRT order was therefore unsustainable, and the statutory remedy had to be pursued. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751285 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked against measures taken under the SARFAESI Act when an effective statutory remedy is available, and that rule applies with particular force in bank recovery matters. The recognised exceptions, including lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other fundamental procedural defects, were not established on the facts. A confirmed auction sale, once registered, created rights in favour of the auction purchaser and could not be reopened at an advanced stage absent fraud or collusion. The High Court's interference with the DRT order was therefore unsustainable, and the statutory remedy had to be pursued. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751285