https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110459 Judicial interference with a State Financial Corporation's sale under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was not warranted where the borrower had defaulted, the sale was widely advertised, the notice was corrected to cover the relevant assets, and no purchaser responded to the public notice. The petitioner did not make any offer at the negotiation stage, and the record did not show any higher bona fide offer or non-transparent conduct by the Corporation. Mere allegations that the industrial unit could have fetched a better price were insufficient. The sale in favour of the purchaser was upheld, with consequential directions on refund and adjustment of any surplus in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:45:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110459 Judicial interference with a State Financial Corporation's sale under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was not warranted where the borrower had defaulted, the sale was widely advertised, the notice was corrected to cover the relevant assets, and no purchaser responded to the public notice. The petitioner did not make any offer at the negotiation stage, and the record did not show any higher bona fide offer or non-transparent conduct by the Corporation. Mere allegations that the industrial unit could have fetched a better price were insufficient. The sale in favour of the purchaser was upheld, with consequential directions on refund and adjustment of any surplus in accordance with law. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110459