https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465778 Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite an available appellate remedy, because alternate remedy is discretionary and does not bar challenge where proceedings are alleged to be without jurisdiction or contrary to legal rights; the territorial objection was also not accepted. On the merits, a compromise scheme sanctioned under the Companies Act binds creditors, but discharge of the secured debt and release of the mortgage depended on proof of actual payment. As reliable proof of settlement was lacking, and the documents did not show full satisfaction of the liability, the recovery proceedings were not treated as barred. The petition ultimately failed and the recovery action was allowed to stand. en-us Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 13:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465778 Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite an available appellate remedy, because alternate remedy is discretionary and does not bar challenge where proceedings are alleged to be without jurisdiction or contrary to legal rights; the territorial objection was also not accepted. On the merits, a compromise scheme sanctioned under the Companies Act binds creditors, but discharge of the secured debt and release of the mortgage depended on proof of actual payment. As reliable proof of settlement was lacking, and the documents did not show full satisfaction of the liability, the recovery proceedings were not treated as barred. The petition ultimately failed and the recovery action was allowed to stand. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465778