https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285947 Limitation for challenging an execution sale was saved by exclusion of time spent in a pending debt settlement proceeding, so the application was not barred. Alleged non-service of the concise statement did not vitiate the sale because posting by registered letter with an endorsement of refusal raised a presumption of due service, which was not rebutted, and actual notice also meant no substantial injury was shown. Restoration of the debt settlement proceeding did not retrospectively revive the statutory bar, because the sale occurred before notice reached the executing court and intervening acts were not rendered void. The sale and confirmation order were upheld. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2020 16:55:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285947 Limitation for challenging an execution sale was saved by exclusion of time spent in a pending debt settlement proceeding, so the application was not barred. Alleged non-service of the concise statement did not vitiate the sale because posting by registered letter with an endorsement of refusal raised a presumption of due service, which was not rebutted, and actual notice also meant no substantial injury was shown. Restoration of the debt settlement proceeding did not retrospectively revive the statutory bar, because the sale occurred before notice reached the executing court and intervening acts were not rendered void. The sale and confirmation order were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Feb 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285947