https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351644 Forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as part of the measures taken in enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The expression "any person" in Section 17(1) was construed broadly to include an aggrieved auction purchaser, and Section 17(2) was read as empowering the Debts Recovery Tribunal to examine whether the measures under Section 13(4) and the Rules were in accordance with law. On that basis, the writ petition was not entertainable and the statutory remedy under Section 17 before the DRT was the proper course. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351644 Forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as part of the measures taken in enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The expression "any person" in Section 17(1) was construed broadly to include an aggrieved auction purchaser, and Section 17(2) was read as empowering the Debts Recovery Tribunal to examine whether the measures under Section 13(4) and the Rules were in accordance with law. On that basis, the writ petition was not entertainable and the statutory remedy under Section 17 before the DRT was the proper course. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351644