https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430497 A typographical error in the door number in an e-auction notice did not invalidate the sale where the secured asset was otherwise identified with full particulars and no ambiguity, bidder confusion, or prejudice was shown. Delay of four days in paying the balance 75% of the bid amount under the pre-amended Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was also held not to vitiate the auction sale, because the payment period was not treated as an inflexible outer limit and the delay occurred amid pending proceedings without demonstrated prejudice. The auction sale was therefore upheld and title under the sale certificate restored. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430497 A typographical error in the door number in an e-auction notice did not invalidate the sale where the secured asset was otherwise identified with full particulars and no ambiguity, bidder confusion, or prejudice was shown. Delay of four days in paying the balance 75% of the bid amount under the pre-amended Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was also held not to vitiate the auction sale, because the payment period was not treated as an inflexible outer limit and the delay occurred amid pending proceedings without demonstrated prejudice. The auction sale was therefore upheld and title under the sale certificate restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430497