https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308921 Forfeiture of a bidder's 25% deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was held to be a statutory penalty, and interference is justified only where refusal of further time or forfeiture is patently arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court found no such arbitrariness where the purchaser had already received an extension but still failed to pay within the permitted period. It also held that refund could not be ordered on unjust enrichment grounds, because forfeiture under the SARFAESI framework is expressly authorised by law and must be assessed on the facts existing when the order was made, not by later resale of the asset. 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 Forfeiture of a bidder's 25% deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was held to be a statutory penalty, and interference is justified only where refusal of further time or forfeiture is patently arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court found no such arbitrariness where the purchaser had already received an extension but still failed to pay within the permitted period. It also held that refund could not be ordered on unjust enrichment grounds, because forfeiture under the SARFAESI framework is expressly authorised by law and must be assessed on the facts existing when the order was made, not by later resale of the asset. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308921