<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (9) TMI 788 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109722</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings, a confirmed sale could not be recalled merely because a non-party later made a higher offer. The court found no provision in the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 authorising reopening of the confirmed sale on these facts, especially where no fraud by the purchaser was alleged. The highest bidder was a necessary party to any challenge but had not been impleaded, and the relief could not be granted behind that purchaser&#039;s back while an appeal was pending.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:27:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 788 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109722</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings, a confirmed sale could not be recalled merely because a non-party later made a higher offer. The court found no provision in the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 authorising reopening of the confirmed sale on these facts, especially where no fraud by the purchaser was alleged. The highest bidder was a necessary party to any challenge but had not been impleaded, and the relief could not be granted behind that purchaser&#039;s back while an appeal was pending.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>