<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 1464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458413</link>
    <description>Measures taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are treated as measures under Section 13(4), so an aggrieved person ordinarily has a statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The ordinary rule is that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be invoked where that efficacious alternate remedy exists, especially when the dispute raises factual and legal questions that the Tribunal can examine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458413</link>
      <description>Measures taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are treated as measures under Section 13(4), so an aggrieved person ordinarily has a statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The ordinary rule is that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be invoked where that efficacious alternate remedy exists, especially when the dispute raises factual and legal questions that the Tribunal can examine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>