https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97370 The Supreme Court found that the tender made by the liquidators to Chunilal was invalid due to lack of authority, allowing Chunilal to refuse it. Chunilal's refusal to accept the tender was justified, and he did not breach the agreement. While Chunilal initially had no right to acquire the shares, events in July 1955 created an expectation of a preferential claim. Chunilal's offer was higher than Adhyaru's and deserved approval. The District Judge's discretion in sanctioning Chunilal's offer was upheld, and the High Court's decision to order a public auction was overturned. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chunilal, dismissing Adhyaru's appeal and restoring the District Judge's order. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97370 The Supreme Court found that the tender made by the liquidators to Chunilal was invalid due to lack of authority, allowing Chunilal to refuse it. Chunilal's refusal to accept the tender was justified, and he did not breach the agreement. While Chunilal initially had no right to acquire the shares, events in July 1955 created an expectation of a preferential claim. Chunilal's offer was higher than Adhyaru's and deserved approval. The District Judge's discretion in sanctioning Chunilal's offer was upheld, and the High Court's decision to order a public auction was overturned. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chunilal, dismissing Adhyaru's appeal and restoring the District Judge's order. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 14 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97370