<?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>2026 (6) TMI 1353 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793972</link>
    <description>A secured creditor selling property under the SARFAESI framework must disclose encumbrances known to it and comply with the delivery and sale-certificate requirements in Rules 9(9) and 9(10) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Where the bank knew of a pending civil suit and decree affecting the secured asset but failed to disclose them in the sale notice or otherwise, the nondisclosure breached the mandatory sale scheme. On those facts, the auction purchaser was entitled to refund of the sale consideration and registration charges, together with interest, because the bank retained the purchaser&#039;s money after the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1353 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793972</link>
      <description>A secured creditor selling property under the SARFAESI framework must disclose encumbrances known to it and comply with the delivery and sale-certificate requirements in Rules 9(9) and 9(10) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Where the bank knew of a pending civil suit and decree affecting the secured asset but failed to disclose them in the sale notice or otherwise, the nondisclosure breached the mandatory sale scheme. On those facts, the auction purchaser was entitled to refund of the sale consideration and registration charges, together with interest, because the bank retained the purchaser&#039;s money after the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>