https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760195 Under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the balance sale consideration was not treated as unpaid default where the auction purchasers were ready and willing to pay, but the secured creditor itself declined to accept payment and acted on later external developments. The time for payment was not absolute and could be extended by written agreement under Rule 9(4) read with Rule 9(5). A unilateral cancellation of the confirmed auction, without any recorded finding of purchaser default and without notice or hearing, violated natural justice and could not be justified later by affidavit. The cancellation and refusal to issue the sale certificate were held illegal. en-us Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:48:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760195 Under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the balance sale consideration was not treated as unpaid default where the auction purchasers were ready and willing to pay, but the secured creditor itself declined to accept payment and acted on later external developments. The time for payment was not absolute and could be extended by written agreement under Rule 9(4) read with Rule 9(5). A unilateral cancellation of the confirmed auction, without any recorded finding of purchaser default and without notice or hearing, violated natural justice and could not be justified later by affidavit. The cancellation and refusal to issue the sale certificate were held illegal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760195