#oral directions

Public authorities cannot evade payment for work executed on their oral instructions when an official committee has verified the scope and value of the work. Refusal to pay under such circumstances constitutes unjust enrichment, entitling contractors to recovery even without a written contract - a critical safeguard for government contractors relying on administrative directives.

Bombay High Court rules that oral directions by a tribunal cannot substitute written interim orders under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing procedural fairness. The ruling protects secured creditors from premature possession restoration without proper legal safeguards, reinforcing the necessity of written orders in recovery proceedings.

Bombay High Court rules that restoration of possession under the SARFAESI Act must strictly follow statutory procedures; oral directions or informal assurances from the Debt Recovery Tribunal are jurisdictionally invalid. The judgment reinforces that secured creditors cannot be compelled to relinquish possession based on unwritten assurances, safeguarding procedural fairness in debt recovery.