The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings, holding that an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 17 exists and the High Court should not entertain it under Article 226.
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. - 6409 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shakeel Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brahmanand Singh
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 :- 26.2.2019 PS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 17 is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Limited and another Vs. Sri Ikbal and othersDistinguished¶7
(2013) 10 SCC 83 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shakeel Ahmad
State Of U P
2 Others
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
