https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328293 A successful auction bidder acquires no enforceable right to compel execution of the sale deed unless the balance purchase price is paid within the statutory period under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, or within a written extension. On that basis, the re-auction and sale in favour of subsequent bidders were upheld, and judicial review did not justify interference merely because the bidder was not earlier informed of pending proceedings or because the reserve price was challenged. The writ of mandamus was therefore unavailable for want of a corresponding legal right, while the question of forfeiture was left open for the appropriate forum. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:50:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328293 A successful auction bidder acquires no enforceable right to compel execution of the sale deed unless the balance purchase price is paid within the statutory period under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, or within a written extension. On that basis, the re-auction and sale in favour of subsequent bidders were upheld, and judicial review did not justify interference merely because the bidder was not earlier informed of pending proceedings or because the reserve price was challenged. The writ of mandamus was therefore unavailable for want of a corresponding legal right, while the question of forfeiture was left open for the appropriate forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328293