<?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>2010 (2) TMI 967 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126976</link>
    <description>Where sale of sick company assets is conducted under binding rehabilitation conditions, strict compliance with the prescribed terms is required. The appellate authority cannot treat a mandatory bank guarantee requirement or payment schedule as redundant, or confirm sale in favour of a bidder who has not complied with those material conditions and has not challenged them. Because public assets and secured creditors&#039; funds were at stake, the sale conditions had to be enforced as framed. The writ petition succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the refusal to confirm the sale was restored, leaving the assets to be dealt with afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 967 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126976</link>
      <description>Where sale of sick company assets is conducted under binding rehabilitation conditions, strict compliance with the prescribed terms is required. The appellate authority cannot treat a mandatory bank guarantee requirement or payment schedule as redundant, or confirm sale in favour of a bidder who has not complied with those material conditions and has not challenged them. Because public assets and secured creditors&#039; funds were at stake, the sale conditions had to be enforced as framed. The writ petition succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the refusal to confirm the sale was restored, leaving the assets to be dealt with afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>