https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195060 Where the Second Schedule recovery procedure applies under the 1993 recovery law, a challenge to a completed auction sale must comply strictly with the 30-day limit and the statutory deposit requirement under Rule 61. The petitioner sought redemption after the prescribed period without making the mandatory deposit in time, so the claim was not legally sustainable. As the auction purchaser had already participated in the sale and paid the consideration, the purchaser's rights could not be displaced by an out-of-time and non-compliant application. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to redeem the mortgaged property. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:18:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195060 Where the Second Schedule recovery procedure applies under the 1993 recovery law, a challenge to a completed auction sale must comply strictly with the 30-day limit and the statutory deposit requirement under Rule 61. The petitioner sought redemption after the prescribed period without making the mandatory deposit in time, so the claim was not legally sustainable. As the auction purchaser had already participated in the sale and paid the consideration, the purchaser's rights could not be displaced by an out-of-time and non-compliant application. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to redeem the mortgaged property. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195060