<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (11) TMI 500 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113495</link>
    <description>A secured creditor disposing of an immovable secured asset must follow the staged procedure under the Rules, including a possession notice, publication, valuation and reserve price fixation, a separate 30-day sale notice, and the prescribed sale process. A consolidated possession-cum-sale notice was treated as non-compliant because the framework requires distinct steps and meaningful opportunity for the borrower to respond. The creditor also failed to justify rejection of the borrower&#039;s higher settlement offer in favour of a third party, with no transparent decision-making and no completed sale shown on the record. The challenged action was set aside and the disposal process was required to restart in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 500 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113495</link>
      <description>A secured creditor disposing of an immovable secured asset must follow the staged procedure under the Rules, including a possession notice, publication, valuation and reserve price fixation, a separate 30-day sale notice, and the prescribed sale process. A consolidated possession-cum-sale notice was treated as non-compliant because the framework requires distinct steps and meaningful opportunity for the borrower to respond. The creditor also failed to justify rejection of the borrower&#039;s higher settlement offer in favour of a third party, with no transparent decision-making and no completed sale shown on the record. The challenged action was set aside and the disposal process was required to restart in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>