<?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 (11) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214805</link>
    <description>A sale approved under a statutory asset-disposal scheme was held defective where the Custodian acted beyond the approved sale procedure and the parties were not given a fair opportunity to secure a better offer. The Court found that failure to follow the governing sale norms and denial of time to the notified parties amounted to breach of natural justice, rendering the approval vitiated. However, because the sale had largely been implemented and undoing it would prejudice third-party interests, relief was confined to the protected shareholding only. The matter was remitted for a fresh sale of that limited portion in accordance with the approved norms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214805</link>
      <description>A sale approved under a statutory asset-disposal scheme was held defective where the Custodian acted beyond the approved sale procedure and the parties were not given a fair opportunity to secure a better offer. The Court found that failure to follow the governing sale norms and denial of time to the notified parties amounted to breach of natural justice, rendering the approval vitiated. However, because the sale had largely been implemented and undoing it would prejudice third-party interests, relief was confined to the protected shareholding only. The matter was remitted for a fresh sale of that limited portion in accordance with the approved norms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>