TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent application seeking completion of sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and 41 reliefs and concessions was maintainable after an earlier application for similar reliefs had been withdrawn without liberty. (ii) Whether the successful bidder could seek reliefs and concessions beyond the auction notice and process document when the sale was conducted on an "as is where is", "as is what is", "as is how is" and "whatever there is" basis.
Issue (i): Whether the subsequent application seeking completion of sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and 41 reliefs and concessions was maintainable after an earlier application for similar reliefs had been withdrawn without liberty.
Analysis: The earlier application for similar reliefs had been dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. A withdrawal without liberty created a procedural bar against re-agitating the same reliefs through a fresh application. The later application, though filed by the Liquidator, in substance sought the same concessions that had already been pursued and abandoned by the successful bidder. The pending challenge to the auction sale also made immediate declaration of completion inappropriate.
Conclusion: The subsequent application was not maintainable and could not be entertained.
Issue (ii): Whether the successful bidder could seek reliefs and concessions beyond the auction notice and process document when the sale was conducted on an "as is where is", "as is what is", "as is how is" and "whatever there is" basis.
Analysis: The auction terms clearly put bidders on notice that the property was sold on an unconditional disclaimer basis. By participating in the auction, the bidder was deemed to have accepted those terms and was bound by them. The doctrine of caveat emptor applied, requiring the purchaser to undertake due diligence and precluding any expectation that the seller or liquidator would assume liability for unspecified dues, defects, or ancillary concessions beyond the bid document. The reasoning was also supported by the principle that such disclaimers create estoppel against the bidder from later demanding expanded reliefs.
Conclusion: The bidder had no entitlement to reliefs or concessions beyond the auction terms, and the requested clarifications could not be granted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned order refusing the requested completion and concessions was sustained, and no interference was called for in appellate jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A bidder who participates in a liquidation sale on an unconditional disclaimer basis is bound by the auction terms and cannot, after withdrawing an earlier similar application without liberty, seek the same or enlarged reliefs through a subsequent application; such re-agitation is barred by constructive res judicata and the doctrine of caveat emptor.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
