https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238692 A court sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be set aside on allegations of fraud, collusion or irregularity unless the objector proves the defect and also shows substantial injury. On the facts, the objections failed because the alleged overlap in directors did not establish that bidders were the same, the bid-sheet did not support the claimed bidding sequence, the sale terms did not bar further bids, and no prejudice was shown. Separately, a bidder who missed the deposit deadline because of a subsisting stay order was granted limited extension of time to deposit the balance amount and complete the auction payment within the stipulated period. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238692 A court sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be set aside on allegations of fraud, collusion or irregularity unless the objector proves the defect and also shows substantial injury. On the facts, the objections failed because the alleged overlap in directors did not establish that bidders were the same, the bid-sheet did not support the claimed bidding sequence, the sale terms did not bar further bids, and no prejudice was shown. Separately, a bidder who missed the deposit deadline because of a subsisting stay order was granted limited extension of time to deposit the balance amount and complete the auction payment within the stipulated period. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238692