Tagged “security-interest”

M.R. Vasumathi v. Authorised Officer (2026): SARFAESI Rule 9 timelines are mandatory, not directory

The Supreme Court set aside a confirmed SARFAESI auction sale sixteen years on, holding that the balance-deposit timeline in Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is mandatory and goes to the root of the sale's validity. A digest of the facts, the holding, and what it means for auction purchasers and the heirs of a deceased guarantor.