https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465037 SC allowed the auction purchaser's appeal, setting aside the HC's interference with an auction sale concluded in 2007 under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the amended Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules (substituted in 2016) could not be retrospectively applied to vitiate a long-concluded sale for a purely technical infraction. Emphasizing the discretionary and equitable nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, SC ruled that mere procedural irregularity without resultant injustice does not justify upsetting a settled transaction. The guarantor was found solely responsible for initiating frivolous, belated litigation, and the original auction sale and sale certificate in favour of the appellant auction purchaser were restored. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 21:24:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465037 SC allowed the auction purchaser's appeal, setting aside the HC's interference with an auction sale concluded in 2007 under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the amended Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules (substituted in 2016) could not be retrospectively applied to vitiate a long-concluded sale for a purely technical infraction. Emphasizing the discretionary and equitable nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, SC ruled that mere procedural irregularity without resultant injustice does not justify upsetting a settled transaction. The guarantor was found solely responsible for initiating frivolous, belated litigation, and the original auction sale and sale certificate in favour of the appellant auction purchaser were restored. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465037