https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214238 Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is not unconstitutional merely because reserve price is fixed in consultation with the secured creditor without consulting the borrower. The statutory scheme requires valuation by an approved valuer, gives the borrower notice under Rule 8(6), and preserves a thirty-day notice period before sale under Rule 9(1). Read with the right to clear dues under Section 13(8), these safeguards leave the borrower with remedies against arbitrary or unreasonable valuation or reserve price fixation. The validity challenge therefore fails because the Rules and the Act together provide adequate protection. en-us Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214238 Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is not unconstitutional merely because reserve price is fixed in consultation with the secured creditor without consulting the borrower. The statutory scheme requires valuation by an approved valuer, gives the borrower notice under Rule 8(6), and preserves a thirty-day notice period before sale under Rule 9(1). Read with the right to clear dues under Section 13(8), these safeguards leave the borrower with remedies against arbitrary or unreasonable valuation or reserve price fixation. The validity challenge therefore fails because the Rules and the Act together provide adequate protection. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214238