https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352125 Where liability for commissioner/security charges had already been shifted in final recovery proceedings and the parties acted on that determination, the bank's obligation could not continue beyond handover of possession to the auction purchasers. The Court held that the later challenge to the Recovery Officer and DRT orders could not be treated as jurisdictionally void, because the parties had accepted and relied on the final order. It further held that the MSMEDF Council could not reopen a liability already settled in DRT/DRAT proceedings. The Council's award, and the judgments affirming it, were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Dec 2017 18:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352125 Where liability for commissioner/security charges had already been shifted in final recovery proceedings and the parties acted on that determination, the bank's obligation could not continue beyond handover of possession to the auction purchasers. The Court held that the later challenge to the Recovery Officer and DRT orders could not be treated as jurisdictionally void, because the parties had accepted and relied on the final order. It further held that the MSMEDF Council could not reopen a liability already settled in DRT/DRAT proceedings. The Council's award, and the judgments affirming it, were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352125