https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141 The court held that the petitioner lost their co-developer status after defaulting on loan repayment, allowing the approval of co-developer status to Respondent No. 4, who acquired the property through a legitimate auction process. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding SEZ Act violations, stating the petitioner was no longer a co-developer post-auction. Actions by SIDBI under the Securitisation Act were deemed final and binding, with the petitioner lacking grounds to challenge the Board of Approval's decision. The petition was dismissed without costs. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2020 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141 The court held that the petitioner lost their co-developer status after defaulting on loan repayment, allowing the approval of co-developer status to Respondent No. 4, who acquired the property through a legitimate auction process. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding SEZ Act violations, stating the petitioner was no longer a co-developer post-auction. Actions by SIDBI under the Securitisation Act were deemed final and binding, with the petitioner lacking grounds to challenge the Board of Approval's decision. The petition was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141