<?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>2015 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259138</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the appellate order formed part of the cause of action and the forum non conveniens objection could not be reopened after the court had already entertained the matter. The SARFAESI enforcement measures and auction sale were invalid because the statutory safeguards on notice, possession, valuation, sale and consideration of the borrower&#039;s representation were not strictly followed, so the sale was rightly set aside. A bona fide purchaser from the auction-purchaser could not retain title where the underlying transfer was illegal, but equitable relief was warranted for improvements made in good faith, with directions preserving the borrower&#039;s redemption rights while providing valuation-based protection and compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259138</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the appellate order formed part of the cause of action and the forum non conveniens objection could not be reopened after the court had already entertained the matter. The SARFAESI enforcement measures and auction sale were invalid because the statutory safeguards on notice, possession, valuation, sale and consideration of the borrower&#039;s representation were not strictly followed, so the sale was rightly set aside. A bona fide purchaser from the auction-purchaser could not retain title where the underlying transfer was illegal, but equitable relief was warranted for improvements made in good faith, with directions preserving the borrower&#039;s redemption rights while providing valuation-based protection and compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>