https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308921 The Supreme Court held that the Authorized Officer did not act arbitrarily in exercising the power of forfeiture under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court emphasized that forfeiture is a statutory penalty for failure to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time and upheld the decision. Additionally, the Court ruled that the High Court erred in directing a refund, stating that the Bank was entitled to enforce the security interest and that judicial review should not protect private interests over public interest. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2023 08:20:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308921 The Supreme Court held that the Authorized Officer did not act arbitrarily in exercising the power of forfeiture under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court emphasized that forfeiture is a statutory penalty for failure to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time and upheld the decision. Additionally, the Court ruled that the High Court erred in directing a refund, stating that the Bank was entitled to enforce the security interest and that judicial review should not protect private interests over public interest. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308921