https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458387 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked against SARFAESI measures when an effective statutory remedy under Section 17 is available. The challenge to classification of the account as a non-performing asset and the consequent action under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) involved disputed factual and accounting issues, which the Debts Recovery Tribunal was competent to examine. The Tribunal could also assess the measures taken and restore possession if the aggrieved party succeeded. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the statutory remedy. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:42:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458387 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked against SARFAESI measures when an effective statutory remedy under Section 17 is available. The challenge to classification of the account as a non-performing asset and the consequent action under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) involved disputed factual and accounting issues, which the Debts Recovery Tribunal was competent to examine. The Tribunal could also assess the measures taken and restore possession if the aggrieved party succeeded. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the statutory remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458387