https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110205 An application to recall a confirmed company-court sale was held maintainable under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the Court's inherent powers, even though it did not satisfy the conventional grounds for review under Order XLVII CPC. However, the Court refused to reopen the sale merely because a later higher offer was made. It applied the settled principle that a confirmed liquidation sale may be disturbed only for fraud, illegality, material irregularity, or gross inadequacy of price, and found the auction process, valuation, and consideration of liabilities to be adequate. Possession had passed and third-party rights had arisen, so the purchaser's rights were left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:54:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110205 An application to recall a confirmed company-court sale was held maintainable under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the Court's inherent powers, even though it did not satisfy the conventional grounds for review under Order XLVII CPC. However, the Court refused to reopen the sale merely because a later higher offer was made. It applied the settled principle that a confirmed liquidation sale may be disturbed only for fraud, illegality, material irregularity, or gross inadequacy of price, and found the auction process, valuation, and consideration of liabilities to be adequate. Possession had passed and third-party rights had arisen, so the purchaser's rights were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110205