https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436475 The SC considered whether forfeiture of a bidder's deposited earnest money and instalment under a secured asset auction could stand where material facts about pending DRT proceedings and interim protection were not disclosed at the auction stage. It noted that the bidder had complied with the auction terms, the relevant facts were undisputed, and the default provision in Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 could not be applied mechanically. In these circumstances, the dispute was suitable for direct restitution rather than relegation to an alternative remedy, and refund of the deposited amount with consequential interest was directed if payment was delayed. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436475 The SC considered whether forfeiture of a bidder's deposited earnest money and instalment under a secured asset auction could stand where material facts about pending DRT proceedings and interim protection were not disclosed at the auction stage. It noted that the bidder had complied with the auction terms, the relevant facts were undisputed, and the default provision in Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 could not be applied mechanically. In these circumstances, the dispute was suitable for direct restitution rather than relegation to an alternative remedy, and refund of the deposited amount with consequential interest was directed if payment was delayed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436475