<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (3) TMI 112 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766727</link>
    <description>Compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory for maintaining an appeal before the DRAT unless waiver is sought and granted. A writ court will not ordinarily interfere where the challenge turns on disputed questions of fact, including the validity of the mortgage, the mortgagor&#039;s capacity, the extent of secured property, and service of SARFAESI notices, as those matters require evidence before the DRT or DRAT. On the facts presented, the secured creditor&#039;s charge over the mortgaged property was evident, no waiver application was filed, and no explanation was offered for non-compliance, so the writ challenge to the DRAT&#039;s refusal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 112 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766727</link>
      <description>Compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory for maintaining an appeal before the DRAT unless waiver is sought and granted. A writ court will not ordinarily interfere where the challenge turns on disputed questions of fact, including the validity of the mortgage, the mortgagor&#039;s capacity, the extent of secured property, and service of SARFAESI notices, as those matters require evidence before the DRT or DRAT. On the facts presented, the secured creditor&#039;s charge over the mortgaged property was evident, no waiver application was filed, and no explanation was offered for non-compliance, so the writ challenge to the DRAT&#039;s refusal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>