ots- High court stayed further proceedings under Section 13(4) in the writ jurisdiction subject to deposit of Rs 10,00,000 leading the supreme Court to observe “7. In our view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. When the respondent failed to abide by the terms of one-time settlement, there was no justification for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and that too by ignoring the fact that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 17 of the Act.”. Union Bank of India v. Panchanan Subudhi (2010) 15 SCC 552, referred – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002).
.Authorized Officer, State Bank Of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, 2018 PLRonline 1106
