https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457452 Availability of an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where the petition had already been entertained at the interim stage and pleadings were complete, so the objection was rejected. Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules was regarded as mandatory, but a one-day delay in depositing the balance sale consideration was relieved against in light of Covid-19 disruption, the equities of recovery, and the absence of any better realisation from cancellation. The forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of the auction sale were therefore set aside, and the petitioner was directed to complete payment with interest. en-us Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457452 Availability of an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where the petition had already been entertained at the interim stage and pleadings were complete, so the objection was rejected. Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules was regarded as mandatory, but a one-day delay in depositing the balance sale consideration was relieved against in light of Covid-19 disruption, the equities of recovery, and the absence of any better realisation from cancellation. The forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of the auction sale were therefore set aside, and the petitioner was directed to complete payment with interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457452