https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359136 An amendment to Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was held inapplicable to an auction process already initiated by public notice before the amendment, because statutory changes are ordinarily prospective unless retrospective intent is clear. The Court applied the unamended rule and held that the amended three-month cap on payment of balance sale consideration did not govern the transaction. It also found the secured creditor's forfeiture of the purchaser's deposit and decision to issue a fresh re-auction notice arbitrary, since the purchaser remained willing and able to pay within the extended period and the creditor's financial interest was not prejudiced. The forfeiture and re-auction notice were quashed. en-us Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:00:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359136 An amendment to Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was held inapplicable to an auction process already initiated by public notice before the amendment, because statutory changes are ordinarily prospective unless retrospective intent is clear. The Court applied the unamended rule and held that the amended three-month cap on payment of balance sale consideration did not govern the transaction. It also found the secured creditor's forfeiture of the purchaser's deposit and decision to issue a fresh re-auction notice arbitrary, since the purchaser remained willing and able to pay within the extended period and the creditor's financial interest was not prejudiced. The forfeiture and re-auction notice were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359136