Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the secured creditor could cancel a confirmed auction and refuse issuance of the sale certificate on the ground of non-deposit of the balance sale consideration under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and whether such cancellation was sustainable in law.
Analysis: The balance amount was not deposited within the original period because the secured creditor itself declined to accept it and relied on subsequent developments such as a CBI complaint, an ED advisory, and interim proceedings in a connected writ petition. The correspondence showed that the auction purchasers were ready and willing to pay the balance amount, and the time for payment under Rule 9(4) was not absolute, but could be extended by written agreement under Rule 9(4) read with Rule 9(5). The cancellation communication contained no finding of default by the auction purchasers and could not be supplemented later by affidavit. The cancellation was also unilateral and made without notice or hearing, contrary to natural justice.
Conclusion: The auction purchasers were not in default under Rule 9(4) and Rule 9(5); the cancellation of the auction and refusal to issue the sale certificate were illegal, and the appeals failed.