https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457519 Under Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, confirmation of sale in favour of the highest bidder does not require the borrower's consent when the bid equals the reserve price. The scheme of Rules 8(5) and 8(6) treats the reserve price as the minimum sale price, and the first proviso to Rule 9(2) bars confirmation only where the bid falls below that price. The second proviso is therefore triggered only for sales below the reserve price, where borrower and secured creditor consent is needed. This construction preserves the reserve price mechanism and supports the recovery process under the Act. 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 Under Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, confirmation of sale in favour of the highest bidder does not require the borrower's consent when the bid equals the reserve price. The scheme of Rules 8(5) and 8(6) treats the reserve price as the minimum sale price, and the first proviso to Rule 9(2) bars confirmation only where the bid falls below that price. The second proviso is therefore triggered only for sales below the reserve price, where borrower and secured creditor consent is needed. This construction preserves the reserve price mechanism and supports the recovery process under the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457519