<?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>2024 (5) TMI 364 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752311</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under the SARFAESI Rules is necessary for a valid auction sale; admitted non-service of the prescribed notice justified setting aside the sale, even though it had been confirmed and a sale certificate issued. Once the sale was annulled, the auction purchasers could not be treated as owners and their status reverted to tenants. The auction money retained by the Bank had to be refunded without making prior delivery of possession a condition precedent, and restitution was ordered with higher interest because of the Bank&#039;s procedural default and prolonged retention of funds. Any remaining mutual dues between the Bank and the borrower were also directed to be adjusted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 09:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 364 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752311</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under the SARFAESI Rules is necessary for a valid auction sale; admitted non-service of the prescribed notice justified setting aside the sale, even though it had been confirmed and a sale certificate issued. Once the sale was annulled, the auction purchasers could not be treated as owners and their status reverted to tenants. The auction money retained by the Bank had to be refunded without making prior delivery of possession a condition precedent, and restitution was ordered with higher interest because of the Bank&#039;s procedural default and prolonged retention of funds. Any remaining mutual dues between the Bank and the borrower were also directed to be adjusted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>