The court dismissed the writ petition as it is maintainable only by appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, citing the Supreme Court that an efficacious statutory remedy precludes writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2893 of 2019
Petitioner :- M/S Prachi R.O. Drinking Water And 2 Others Respondent :- The Additional District Magistrate (Finance And Revenue) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tarun Varma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
"... it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented."
Order Date :- 13.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be allowed to challenge the proceedings under the Act, 2002 via a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available and adequate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
GM, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another v. Sri Ikbal and othersFollowed¶7
GM, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another v. Sri Ikbal and others (2013) 10 SCC 83 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Prachi R.O. Drinking Water And 2 Others
The Additional District Magistrate (Finance And Revenue) And 2 Others
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar-IV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
