https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326153 Recovery sales under the statutory scheme must be challenged through the prescribed application to set aside the sale, with compliance with the required preconditions; an indirect writ attack will not substitute for that remedy. Where no timely challenge was made and no restraint order was before the recovery officer when bids were opened, the sale could not be treated as vitiated. Confirmation of sale was therefore sustained, and the asserted one-time settlement did not invalidate it because the settlement terms were not honoured. The bank's treatment of the settlement was found not to breach RBI guidelines or Article 14, and no basis existed to award compensation against the auction purchaser. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:48:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326153 Recovery sales under the statutory scheme must be challenged through the prescribed application to set aside the sale, with compliance with the required preconditions; an indirect writ attack will not substitute for that remedy. Where no timely challenge was made and no restraint order was before the recovery officer when bids were opened, the sale could not be treated as vitiated. Confirmation of sale was therefore sustained, and the asserted one-time settlement did not invalidate it because the settlement terms were not honoured. The bank's treatment of the settlement was found not to breach RBI guidelines or Article 14, and no basis existed to award compensation against the auction purchaser. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326153