TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Auction Contract, Rejects Refund Bid</h1> <h3>Utility Engg. (I) Ltd., In re</h3> Utility Engg. (I) Ltd., In re - [2012] 115 SCL 304 (DELHI), [2012] 172 COMP. CAS 295 (DELHI) Issues:Refund of earnest money to the second highest bidder in an auction conducted by the court.Analysis:The applicant, as the second highest bidder in an auction conducted by the court, sought a refund of its earnest money after the highest bidder defaulted in making the required payment within the specified time frame. The court had accepted the highest bid of another party but directed the applicant to comply with the auction terms, including depositing 25% of the bid amount within seven days. The sale notice outlined the conditions for deposit and refund of earnest money, emphasizing forfeiture if terms were not met.When the highest bidder defaulted, the court allowed the official liquidator to invite the second highest bidder (the applicant) to deposit the bid amount. However, the applicant also failed to make the payment within the stipulated time, leading to the forfeiture of their earnest money as per the terms and conditions of the sale notice. The applicant claimed they had withdrawn their offer before being informed of the court's decision, citing provisions of the Indian Contract Act and the Companies Act allowing withdrawal.The court rejected the applicant's arguments, stating that the contract was completed when the auction results were declared, binding the applicant to the terms and conditions. The court highlighted that the relevant section of the Companies Act was not applicable and emphasized that the applicant participated in the auction with full knowledge of the terms, thus being bound by them. Allowing the applicant to withdraw at this stage would defeat the purpose of holding the second highest bidder accountable in case of default by the highest bidder.Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, imposing costs on the applicant for their unsuccessful claim. The costs were to be paid to the official liquidator within a specified period.
TaxTMI 