https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236783 Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as mandatory, but the Court held that its requirements existed for the benefit of the borrower and secured creditor and could be waived. The borrower's written consent to delayed payment and issuance of the sale certificate was treated as a valid written agreement under Rule 9(4), and the auction purchaser's payment on the agreed date substantially complied with the statutory scheme. The sale and sale certificate were therefore upheld. The Court also reiterated that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:28:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236783 Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as mandatory, but the Court held that its requirements existed for the benefit of the borrower and secured creditor and could be waived. The borrower's written consent to delayed payment and issuance of the sale certificate was treated as a valid written agreement under Rule 9(4), and the auction purchaser's payment on the agreed date substantially complied with the statutory scheme. The sale and sale certificate were therefore upheld. The Court also reiterated that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236783