https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793841 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised to challenge SARFAESI recovery action where an effective statutory remedy exists before the DRT. The High Court noted that debt-recovery proceedings had already commenced and that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provide efficacious remedies. Applying self-imposed restraint, it held that such writ petitions are not maintainable unless exceptional grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, fundamental procedural illegality, or reliance on repealed provisions are shown. The petition was therefore not entertained at that stage. en-us Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793841 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised to challenge SARFAESI recovery action where an effective statutory remedy exists before the DRT. The High Court noted that debt-recovery proceedings had already commenced and that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provide efficacious remedies. Applying self-imposed restraint, it held that such writ petitions are not maintainable unless exceptional grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, fundamental procedural illegality, or reliance on repealed provisions are shown. The petition was therefore not entertained at that stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793841