https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309939 In SARFAESI enforcement, the notice and auction framework under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) was read as not requiring duplicate sale notices for the first auction, and later notices after failed auctions were treated as curing any objection; the auction was therefore upheld. The secured asset was also held not to attract the agricultural-land exclusion under Section 31(i), because the borrower had earlier represented, in sworn and contemporaneous loan documents, that the land was being used for non-agricultural purposes and could be proceeded against under the Act. The challenge to reserve price and valuation failed because a fresh valuation was obtained and no illegality or perversity was shown. en-us Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Sep 2023 21:13:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309939 In SARFAESI enforcement, the notice and auction framework under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) was read as not requiring duplicate sale notices for the first auction, and later notices after failed auctions were treated as curing any objection; the auction was therefore upheld. The secured asset was also held not to attract the agricultural-land exclusion under Section 31(i), because the borrower had earlier represented, in sworn and contemporaneous loan documents, that the land was being used for non-agricultural purposes and could be proceeded against under the Act. The challenge to reserve price and valuation failed because a fresh valuation was obtained and no illegality or perversity was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309939