<?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>2008 (5) TMI 408 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111817</link>
    <description>In a court-supervised liquidation sale, the SC upheld the setting aside of a confirmed auction where the sale proclamation omitted material particulars, including valuation, reserve price and inventory, and the court was not satisfied that the assets had fetched a fair or adequate price. The Court affirmed that defective sale may justify a fresh auction to protect the interests of the company and its creditors. Although the appellant&#039;s challenge failed, the Court granted limited equitable relief because the appellant had acted bona fide, deposited the bid amount, and lost the chance to complete the original bargain, directing payment of Rs. 30 lakhs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 408 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111817</link>
      <description>In a court-supervised liquidation sale, the SC upheld the setting aside of a confirmed auction where the sale proclamation omitted material particulars, including valuation, reserve price and inventory, and the court was not satisfied that the assets had fetched a fair or adequate price. The Court affirmed that defective sale may justify a fresh auction to protect the interests of the company and its creditors. Although the appellant&#039;s challenge failed, the Court granted limited equitable relief because the appellant had acted bona fide, deposited the bid amount, and lost the chance to complete the original bargain, directing payment of Rs. 30 lakhs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>