https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187487 Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was interpreted to require consent of both the borrower and the secured creditor where the bid is not higher than the reserve price; a bid at par with the reserve price was treated as insufficient to support confirmation without that consent, making strict compliance with the sale procedure mandatory. The writ remedy was also held not to be barred merely because a Section 17 remedy was available, where the dispute involved a pure question of statutory interpretation. Res judicata and constructive res judicata were rejected because the earlier proceedings did not finally decide the legality of sale confirmation. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:48:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187487 Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was interpreted to require consent of both the borrower and the secured creditor where the bid is not higher than the reserve price; a bid at par with the reserve price was treated as insufficient to support confirmation without that consent, making strict compliance with the sale procedure mandatory. The writ remedy was also held not to be barred merely because a Section 17 remedy was available, where the dispute involved a pure question of statutory interpretation. Res judicata and constructive res judicata were rejected because the earlier proceedings did not finally decide the legality of sale confirmation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187487