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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2011 (7) TMI 1010 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        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

        Court dismisses application to reopen auction; highest bid upheld at Rs. 3.90 Crores. Fair process affirmed. Costs awarded. The court dismissed the application seeking to reopen the auction conducted by the court, as there was no justifiable reason to reject the highest bid of ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Court dismisses application to reopen auction; highest bid upheld at Rs. 3.90 Crores. Fair process affirmed. Costs awarded.

                              The court dismissed the application seeking to reopen the auction conducted by the court, as there was no justifiable reason to reject the highest bid of Rs. 3.90 Crores. The court found that the auction process was fair, the successful bidder complied with payment terms, and subsequent offers did not warrant reopening the auction. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, emphasizing the validity of the auction process and the acceptance of the highest bid.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Reopening of the auction conducted by the Court.
                              2. Validity of the auction process and the highest bid.
                              3. Compliance with the payment terms by the successful bidder.
                              4. Allegations of undervaluation and subsequent higher offers.
                              5. Previous attempts to stall the auction confirmation.

                              Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Reopening of the Auction Conducted by the Court:
                              The application was filed under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the Ex-Promoter Director of the first respondent company, seeking to reopen the auction conducted on 4-3-2011. The applicant contended that he was out of station during the auction and that the property was auctioned below market value. He proposed a new offer of Rs. 4.10 Crores before the sale confirmation.

                              2. Validity of the Auction Process and the Highest Bid:
                              The court reviewed the auction process, noting that multiple attempts were made to secure the best price for the assets of the company in liquidation. The first respondent company was wound up due to non-payment of dues, and the Official Liquidator was tasked with selling the assets. The highest bid received during the auction on 4-3-2011 was Rs. 3.90 Crores by K.N. Shivaswamy, which was close to the latest market valuation of Rs. 3.99 Crores.

                              3. Compliance with the Payment Terms by the Successful Bidder:
                              The successful bidder, K.N. Shivaswamy, was required to deposit the full amount within 30 days. The cheque was drawn on 2-4-2011, but due to 3-4-2011 being a Sunday and 4-4-2011 a government holiday, the cheque was handed over to the Official Liquidator on 5-4-2011 and collected on 8-4-2011. The court found no violation of the payment terms.

                              4. Allegations of Undervaluation and Subsequent Higher Offers:
                              The applicant argued that the market value was initially assessed at Rs. 5.14 Crores, and the highest bid of Rs. 3.90 Crores was below this valuation. However, the court noted that the value of the assets had decreased over time, and the latest valuation was Rs. 3.99 Crores. The court rejected the argument that the auction should be reopened for a higher bid of Rs. 4.10 Crores, as the applicant had the opportunity to bid during the auction but did not.

                              5. Previous Attempts to Stall the Auction Confirmation:
                              The court referenced a previous attempt by MGM Pooja Infra (Pvt) Limited to stall the auction confirmation by offering Rs. 5 Lakhs more than the accepted bid. This attempt was dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the application. The current application was seen as another attempt to delay the process without bona fide reasons.

                              Conclusion:
                              The court concluded that there was no justifiable reason to reopen the auction or reject the highest bid. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The court emphasized that the auction process was conducted fairly, and the bid of Rs. 3.90 Crores was close to the latest market valuation, thereby warranting acceptance.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found