<?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>2016 (10) TMI 204 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333184</link>
    <description>Alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act does not bar a writ petition where the challenge alleges violation of mandatory statutory procedure, so Article 226 review was treated as maintainable. The SARFAESI Rules require a clear 30 days&#039; notice before sale of immovable secured assets, and that interval must be computed strictly without counting the publication date or the sale date. As the sale notice was published on 13.02.2016 and the auction was held on 14.03.2016, the mandatory gap was not satisfied. The e-auction was therefore held invalid, the sale was set aside, and the matter was allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:27:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 204 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333184</link>
      <description>Alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act does not bar a writ petition where the challenge alleges violation of mandatory statutory procedure, so Article 226 review was treated as maintainable. The SARFAESI Rules require a clear 30 days&#039; notice before sale of immovable secured assets, and that interval must be computed strictly without counting the publication date or the sale date. As the sale notice was published on 13.02.2016 and the auction was held on 14.03.2016, the mandatory gap was not satisfied. The e-auction was therefore held invalid, the sale was set aside, and the matter was allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>