https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430432 A civil claim for compensation arising from a SARFAESI auction shortfall is not barred by Section 34 where it does not challenge the auction sale or sale certificate but seeks damages for receiving less land than the extent for which full consideration was paid. The Court also held that a bank cannot rely on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" clause to avoid liability after advertising, selling and certifying a larger extent, retaining the full sale price, and then delivering a materially smaller area. The purchaser was therefore entitled to compensation for the deficiency, and the decree in its favour was restored. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2022 08:58:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430432 A civil claim for compensation arising from a SARFAESI auction shortfall is not barred by Section 34 where it does not challenge the auction sale or sale certificate but seeks damages for receiving less land than the extent for which full consideration was paid. The Court also held that a bank cannot rely on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" clause to avoid liability after advertising, selling and certifying a larger extent, retaining the full sale price, and then delivering a materially smaller area. The purchaser was therefore entitled to compensation for the deficiency, and the decree in its favour was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430432