https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457519 Delhi HC rejected petitioner's interim relief application concerning Rule 9(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The court held that the second proviso to Rule 9(2) provides flexibility for borrowers and secured creditors to sell secured assets below reserve price with mutual consent, preventing defeat of sale endeavors. The proviso refers to highest bid price below reserve price, not any arbitrary price. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, clarifying that selling at reserve price with borrower consent alone would render the first proviso meaningless. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 22 Sep 2024 07:19:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457519 Delhi HC rejected petitioner's interim relief application concerning Rule 9(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The court held that the second proviso to Rule 9(2) provides flexibility for borrowers and secured creditors to sell secured assets below reserve price with mutual consent, preventing defeat of sale endeavors. The proviso refers to highest bid price below reserve price, not any arbitrary price. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, clarifying that selling at reserve price with borrower consent alone would render the first proviso meaningless. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457519