https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293744 The court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the bank liable to reimburse the respondent for pre-sale property tax and maintenance charges. The court found the writ petition under Article 226 maintainable, rejecting the appellant's argument. It determined that the bank had an obligation to disclose known encumbrances despite the "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis of the sale. The court emphasized the bank's duty to disclose encumbrances under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, defining "encumbrance" to include property tax. The judgment highlighted the shift from caveat emptor to caveat venditor, dismissing the appeal and affirming the bank's responsibility to sell encumbrance-free properties. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:03:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293744 The court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the bank liable to reimburse the respondent for pre-sale property tax and maintenance charges. The court found the writ petition under Article 226 maintainable, rejecting the appellant's argument. It determined that the bank had an obligation to disclose known encumbrances despite the "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis of the sale. The court emphasized the bank's duty to disclose encumbrances under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, defining "encumbrance" to include property tax. The judgment highlighted the shift from caveat emptor to caveat venditor, dismissing the appeal and affirming the bank's responsibility to sell encumbrance-free properties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293744