"An order of forfeituremade bg an authorizedofficerunder sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules bg abidder,tttho hasfailed to deposit tLrc entire sale pice uithinninetg dags,the tibunals/ courts ought to be extremelyreluctantto interfere less, of course, a uery exceptional case for interferenceis set up. What uLould constitute a uery exceptionalcase, horueuer, must be detennined bg tle tribunals/ courts on the facts of each case and bg recording cogent reasons forthe conclusion reached. Insofar as challenge to anorder of forfeiturethat is made upon rejectionof an application for ertension of time pior to expiry of ninety days and within tle stipulated period is concerned, the scruting could bea bit more intrusiue for ascertaining uthether anApatent arbitrariness or unreasonableness is the decision-making process has had the effect of uitiating the order under challenge. Hotueuer, in course of such scruting, the tibunals/ courts must be careful and cautious and direct their attentions to examine each cose in some depth to locate uttLether there is likelihood of ang hidden interest of the tle sale to benefit the defaulting borrower ,ueedout claims of biddersutho t to participate in the auctions do agenda to with.draw from the frag p*tlohff.,qafr of tffutffu process."
