https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114067 The court dismissed the writ petition seeking confirmation of a sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It held that the secured creditor's refusal to confirm the sale was justified due to procedural defects, emphasizing the distinction between the authorized officer and the secured creditor's roles. The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act and concluded that positive directions could not be issued, given the circumstances. No costs were awarded in the case. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114067 The court dismissed the writ petition seeking confirmation of a sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It held that the secured creditor's refusal to confirm the sale was justified due to procedural defects, emphasizing the distinction between the authorized officer and the secured creditor's roles. The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act and concluded that positive directions could not be issued, given the circumstances. No costs were awarded in the case. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114067