<?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>2013 (5) TMI 601 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234016</link>
    <description>A sealed-bid auction bidder who submits a conditional offer is bound by the terms recorded in the auction minutes and the contemporaneous acceptance letter, especially where the sale notice allowed rejection of non-conforming bids. The court noted that the bank had no prior notice of the bidder&#039;s condition concerning statutory dues, and the accepted auction terms placed those dues on the purchaser while also permitting forfeiture of the deposit on default in payment of the balance consideration. Because the refund claim failed on the contractual terms, no separate interest claim could survive. The suit was therefore dismissed and the bank&#039;s right to retain the deposit upon default was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 601 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234016</link>
      <description>A sealed-bid auction bidder who submits a conditional offer is bound by the terms recorded in the auction minutes and the contemporaneous acceptance letter, especially where the sale notice allowed rejection of non-conforming bids. The court noted that the bank had no prior notice of the bidder&#039;s condition concerning statutory dues, and the accepted auction terms placed those dues on the purchaser while also permitting forfeiture of the deposit on default in payment of the balance consideration. Because the refund claim failed on the contractual terms, no separate interest claim could survive. The suit was therefore dismissed and the bank&#039;s right to retain the deposit upon default was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>