Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Court sets aside sale of assets due to inadequate price, orders re-auction. Workmen's interests considered.</h1> The court set aside the confirmed sale of assets of Punjab Wireless Systems Limited in favor of M/s. Winsome Yarns Ltd. due to inadequacy of the price and ... Winding up – Powers of liquidator Issues Involved1. Confirmation of the sale of assets of the company in liquidation.2. Inadequacy of the price offered in the auction.3. The rights and interests of secured creditors and workmen.4. Legitimacy of the interveners' higher bid post-confirmation.5. Compliance with the procedural requirements for the sale.Detailed Analysis1. Confirmation of the Sale of AssetsThe court was tasked with confirming the sale of assets of the company in liquidation, Punjab Wireless Systems Limited (Punwire). The official liquidator had conducted an auction, and the highest bid was received from M/s. Winsome Yarns Ltd. for lot Nos. 17, 19, and 20. The sale was confirmed on December 10, 2004, and possession was handed over to the auction purchaser.2. Inadequacy of the Price OfferedThe primary issue was whether the price offered by the auction purchaser was adequate. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the court to ensure that the price fetched at the auction is adequate. The Supreme Court's rulings in Navalkha and Sons and Union Bank of India cases were cited, which state that the confirmation of the sale acts as a safeguard against the property being sold at an inadequate price. The court noted that the price difference between the confirmed bid (Rs. 3.36 crores) and the subsequent offer by the intervener (Rs. 3.75 crores) was significant, indicating that the initial sale price might have been inadequate.3. Rights and Interests of Secured Creditors and WorkmenThe court highlighted the importance of considering the interests of secured creditors and workmen. Under Section 529A of the Companies Act, the dues of the workmen are treated pari passu with those of secured creditors. The court found that the official liquidator failed to associate the workmen in the sale process, which was a significant oversight. The employees' union had not been consulted, and their interests were not adequately protected.4. Legitimacy of the Interveners' Higher Bid Post-ConfirmationThe court considered the legitimacy of the higher bid made by the intervener, Sun Group Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., after the sale was confirmed. The intervener offered Rs. 12 crores for the entire assets of Punwire, which was substantially higher than the confirmed bid. The court noted that the higher bid was made in good faith and aimed at reviving the company, which would benefit the secured creditors and workmen. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Divya Manufacturing Co., which allows setting aside a confirmed sale if a higher offer is made subsequently.5. Compliance with Procedural RequirementsThe court examined whether the sale process complied with the procedural requirements under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Rule 272 requires that every sale by the official liquidator be subject to confirmation by the court. The court found that the official liquidator had followed the required procedures, including wide publicity and inviting sealed tenders. However, the court noted that the sale price's adequacy was not sufficiently ensured, which warranted setting aside the confirmation.ConclusionThe court concluded that the confirmed sale in favor of M/s. Winsome Yarns Ltd. should be set aside due to the inadequacy of the price and the failure to consider the interests of the workmen. The court directed the official liquidator to re-auction the assets, with the expenses for re-auction to be borne by the intervener, Sun Group Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The auction purchaser was entitled to recover the interest paid on the loan from the interveners. The applications were disposed of accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found