https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459251 A belated writ challenge to SARFAESI measures was held vulnerable to delay and laches after repeated earlier challenges and more than a year's gap from the impugned action. On the merits, the Court stated that once measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken, BIFR could not decide whether those measures were correctly invoked; such questions had to be pursued under the SARFAESI framework or in writ jurisdiction. The Court also relied on an unchallenged DRT finding that the bank held a valid second charge, and declined to entertain collateral assertions disputing the secured creditor's status. en-us Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2024 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459251 A belated writ challenge to SARFAESI measures was held vulnerable to delay and laches after repeated earlier challenges and more than a year's gap from the impugned action. On the merits, the Court stated that once measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken, BIFR could not decide whether those measures were correctly invoked; such questions had to be pursued under the SARFAESI framework or in writ jurisdiction. The Court also relied on an unchallenged DRT finding that the bank held a valid second charge, and declined to entertain collateral assertions disputing the secured creditor's status. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459251