https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108354 A recorded statement by the official liquidator that the premises were needed only for a limited period and would then be vacated bound the proceedings, and later orders could not reopen that settled position without any review or challenge. The court held that an order going beyond the liquidator's report, and relying on an unpleaded change in rent-control regime, was unsustainable. It also held that the auction sale of movables could not be refused confirmation merely because interveners later claimed a higher offer that was not maintained. The impugned order was set aside, possession was directed to be handed over, and the auction sale in favour of the highest bidders was confirmed. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:23:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108354 A recorded statement by the official liquidator that the premises were needed only for a limited period and would then be vacated bound the proceedings, and later orders could not reopen that settled position without any review or challenge. The court held that an order going beyond the liquidator's report, and relying on an unpleaded change in rent-control regime, was unsustainable. It also held that the auction sale of movables could not be refused confirmation merely because interveners later claimed a higher offer that was not maintained. The impugned order was set aside, possession was directed to be handed over, and the auction sale in favour of the highest bidders was confirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108354