https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457520 A pre-deposit order requiring at least 25% of the debt due could not be satisfied by accepting a lower deposit without verifying the recovery record; where the sale proclamation showed liability far above the figure assumed, the stay orders halting auction were legally unsustainable and were quashed, with the auction stay vacated. A writ challenge to restraint on alienation and auction also failed because the record, prior proceedings and consent terms showed continuing liability beyond the amount asserted, and no jurisdictional defect in the recovery process was established; the writ petition was dismissed with costs. The governing principle was that recovery or auction cannot be restrained on an incorrect factual premise about the debt due. en-us Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:17:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457520 A pre-deposit order requiring at least 25% of the debt due could not be satisfied by accepting a lower deposit without verifying the recovery record; where the sale proclamation showed liability far above the figure assumed, the stay orders halting auction were legally unsustainable and were quashed, with the auction stay vacated. A writ challenge to restraint on alienation and auction also failed because the record, prior proceedings and consent terms showed continuing liability beyond the amount asserted, and no jurisdictional defect in the recovery process was established; the writ petition was dismissed with costs. The governing principle was that recovery or auction cannot be restrained on an incorrect factual premise about the debt due. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457520