Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Scheduled bank's appeal allowed due to auction irregularities. Properties to be re-auctioned for fair prices.</h1> <h3>Sangli Bank Ltd. Versus Official Liquidator</h3> Sangli Bank Ltd. Versus Official Liquidator - [2004] 55 SCL 40 (BOM.) Issues Involved:1. Review of the order confirming the sale of immovable properties by the Official Liquidator.2. Comparison of valuations obtained by the Liquidator and the Sub-Registrar.3. Allegation of material irregularity in the auction process.4. Adequacy of the price fetched at the auction.5. Bona fides of the appellant bank.6. Re-auction of the properties.7. Compliance with the court's previous order by the Official Liquidator.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Review of the Order Confirming the Sale of Immovable Properties by the Official Liquidator:The appellant, a scheduled bank, challenged the order passed by a Single Judge on 12th February 2004, which rejected their application for review of an earlier order dated 22nd August 2003. This earlier order confirmed the sale of three lots of immovable properties belonging to a company in liquidation. The bank's application for review was based on the contention that the auction was finalized based on an incorrect valuation by the Liquidator.2. Comparison of Valuations Obtained by the Liquidator and the Sub-Registrar:The appellant argued that the valuations obtained by the Liquidator were not according to the value mentioned in the Government of Maharashtra's ready reckoner. The Sub-Registrar's report, obtained later, showed significantly higher valuations for the properties. For instance, Lot No. III (Manager's Bungalow) was valued at Rs. 8,64,000 by the Sub-Registrar, compared to Rs. 4,31,000 by the Liquidator's valuer. Similarly, Lot No. IV (Sub-lot No. 3) and Lot No. IV (Sub-lot No. 5) had substantial differences in valuations.3. Allegation of Material Irregularity in the Auction Process:The appellant claimed that there was a material irregularity in the auction process as the properties were sold without first obtaining the prevailing rates from the Sub-Registrar, as directed by an earlier court order. This irregularity led to the properties being sold at a much lower price than their actual market value.4. Adequacy of the Price Fetched at the Auction:The court noted that the bids accepted for the properties were somewhat comparable to the valuations provided by the Sub-Registrar. However, the appellant bank argued that the properties were sold at grossly inadequate prices. The Supreme Court's judgment in Divya Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India was cited, emphasizing the court's duty to ensure that the price fetched at the auction is adequate, even in the absence of fraud or irregularity.5. Bona Fides of the Appellant Bank:The court considered the bona fides of the appellant bank, which had a substantial outstanding claim against the company in liquidation. The bank's willingness to deposit higher amounts for the properties indicated its bona fides. The court found that the bank's application for review was justified and bona fide.6. Re-auction of the Properties:The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 12th February 2004. It directed the Liquidator to re-auction the properties after obtaining the correct market price from the Sub-Registrar. The auction was to be held at the Head Office of the Sangli Bank in Sangli, with all expenses borne by the appellant bank.7. Compliance with the Court's Previous Order by the Official Liquidator:The court expressed displeasure with the Official Liquidator for not complying with the earlier order to obtain valuations from the Sub-Registrar. The Liquidator was directed to make a report to the Company Judge explaining the non-compliance and identifying those responsible.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the earlier order confirming the sale was set aside. The properties were to be re-auctioned following proper procedures to ensure the correct market price was obtained, protecting the interests of the company, its creditors, and its employees.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found