<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Earnest Money Forfeiture Under SARFAESI Act Upheld; Indian Contract Act Sections 73, 74 Not Applicable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74675</link>
    <description>Forfeiture of the earnest money deposit by the appellant bank - The Supreme Court held that, the underlying principle envisaged u/s(s) 73 &amp; 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which is a general law will have no application, when it comes to the SARFAESI Act more particularly the forfeiture of earnest-money deposit which has been statutorily provided under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules as a consequence of the auction purchaser’s failure to deposit the balance amount. - The High Court erred in law by holding that forfeiture of the entire deposit under Rule 9 sub-rule (5) of the SARFAESI Rules by the appellant bank after having already recovered its dues from the subsequent sale amounts to unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2024 07:13:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2024 05:23:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Earnest Money Forfeiture Under SARFAESI Act Upheld; Indian Contract Act Sections 73, 74 Not Applicable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74675</link>
      <description>Forfeiture of the earnest money deposit by the appellant bank - The Supreme Court held that, the underlying principle envisaged u/s(s) 73 &amp; 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which is a general law will have no application, when it comes to the SARFAESI Act more particularly the forfeiture of earnest-money deposit which has been statutorily provided under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules as a consequence of the auction purchaser’s failure to deposit the balance amount. - The High Court erred in law by holding that forfeiture of the entire deposit under Rule 9 sub-rule (5) of the SARFAESI Rules by the appellant bank after having already recovered its dues from the subsequent sale amounts to unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2024 07:13:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>