https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217349 Repeated default by the borrower, coupled with the lapse of earlier settlement terms and a prior final order permitting recovery action, meant the High Court should not have reopened the concluded dispute or directed a fresh one-time settlement and restoration of possession. The record also showed compliance with the statutory auction process under section 29: recall notice, seizure after default, independent valuation, newspaper publication, receipt of bids, acceptance of the highest bid, and an opportunity for the borrower to match the offer. On that basis, the auction sale and delivery of possession were treated as valid, and the sale in favour of the appellant was restored. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217349 Repeated default by the borrower, coupled with the lapse of earlier settlement terms and a prior final order permitting recovery action, meant the High Court should not have reopened the concluded dispute or directed a fresh one-time settlement and restoration of possession. The record also showed compliance with the statutory auction process under section 29: recall notice, seizure after default, independent valuation, newspaper publication, receipt of bids, acceptance of the highest bid, and an opportunity for the borrower to match the offer. On that basis, the auction sale and delivery of possession were treated as valid, and the sale in favour of the appellant was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217349