https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325367 Compliance with the payment requirements under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as mandatory, and delay in paying the required auction amounts without a valid written extension constituted breach of the statutory procedure; the immovable-property auction was therefore liable to be set aside. A separate challenge to the movable-property sale certificate could not be entertained because it would have re-agitated issues already concluded by an earlier Division Bench judgment; relief on that issue was refused. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:02:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325367 Compliance with the payment requirements under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as mandatory, and delay in paying the required auction amounts without a valid written extension constituted breach of the statutory procedure; the immovable-property auction was therefore liable to be set aside. A separate challenge to the movable-property sale certificate could not be entertained because it would have re-agitated issues already concluded by an earlier Division Bench judgment; relief on that issue was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325367