https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111444 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the learned Company Judge's order directing respondent No. 3 to hand over possession of the units to respondent No. 1. The appellant's objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal, the validity of the order dated 8-9-2006, the eligibility of respondent No. 1, and the legality of the bidding process were all rejected. The bank draft deposited by the appellant was ordered to be returned upon proper application and identification. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:49:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111444 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the learned Company Judge's order directing respondent No. 3 to hand over possession of the units to respondent No. 1. The appellant's objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal, the validity of the order dated 8-9-2006, the eligibility of respondent No. 1, and the legality of the bidding process were all rejected. The bank draft deposited by the appellant was ordered to be returned upon proper application and identification. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111444