<?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>2011 (9) TMI 771 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211925</link>
    <description>Where a company liquidation sale remains subject to court confirmation, no vested right arises merely from acceptance of the auction bid, and the Court may reopen the process before final confirmation if substantially higher bona fide offers show that the asset has not fetched adequate value. The Court balanced the auction purchaser&#039;s position against the interests of secured creditors and the need to maximise realisation for the liquidation estate. To avoid the delay and cost of repeated re-advertisement, it directed a limited inter se bidding between the auction purchaser and the rival highest bidder, with compensation protection for the auction purchaser if it was unsuccessful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 771 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211925</link>
      <description>Where a company liquidation sale remains subject to court confirmation, no vested right arises merely from acceptance of the auction bid, and the Court may reopen the process before final confirmation if substantially higher bona fide offers show that the asset has not fetched adequate value. The Court balanced the auction purchaser&#039;s position against the interests of secured creditors and the need to maximise realisation for the liquidation estate. To avoid the delay and cost of repeated re-advertisement, it directed a limited inter se bidding between the auction purchaser and the rival highest bidder, with compensation protection for the auction purchaser if it was unsuccessful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>