<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339454</link>
    <description>Under the SARFAESI framework, a secured creditor must disclose known encumbrances in the sale notice, deliver possession in accordance with the statutory scheme where applicable, and clearly state in the sale certificate whether the purchase is free from encumbrances. Forfeiture of the auction purchaser&#039;s deposit is justified only when the purchaser defaults in paying the balance consideration. Here, the sale notice merely described the property on an &quot;as is where is&quot; and &quot;as is what is&quot; basis without disclosing the decree and encumbrance, and the bank did not act consistently with the required possession process. The purchaser&#039;s refusal to complete the sale was therefore not a default attracting forfeiture, and refund with interest was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:40:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339454</link>
      <description>Under the SARFAESI framework, a secured creditor must disclose known encumbrances in the sale notice, deliver possession in accordance with the statutory scheme where applicable, and clearly state in the sale certificate whether the purchase is free from encumbrances. Forfeiture of the auction purchaser&#039;s deposit is justified only when the purchaser defaults in paying the balance consideration. Here, the sale notice merely described the property on an &quot;as is where is&quot; and &quot;as is what is&quot; basis without disclosing the decree and encumbrance, and the bank did not act consistently with the required possession process. The purchaser&#039;s refusal to complete the sale was therefore not a default attracting forfeiture, and refund with interest was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>