https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301448 Under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the second proviso was read as requiring pre-deposit only to the extent of debt due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the DRT. Where the secured creditor had already sold the mortgaged asset, executed the sale deed and delivered possession, and the sale proceeds exceeded the claimed dues, those proceeds had to be taken into account for the pre-deposit requirement. The Court also held that a mere possibility that the auction sale may later be set aside does not alter the interpretation of Section 18, and the pre-deposit cannot be treated as separately secured by the bank simply because the borrower challenges the sale. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2022 20:58:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301448 Under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the second proviso was read as requiring pre-deposit only to the extent of debt due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the DRT. Where the secured creditor had already sold the mortgaged asset, executed the sale deed and delivered possession, and the sale proceeds exceeded the claimed dues, those proceeds had to be taken into account for the pre-deposit requirement. The Court also held that a mere possibility that the auction sale may later be set aside does not alter the interpretation of Section 18, and the pre-deposit cannot be treated as separately secured by the bank simply because the borrower challenges the sale. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301448