<?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>2014 (1) TMI 988 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242772</link>
    <description>A confirmed court or statutory auction in favour of a bona fide third-party purchaser is protected and cannot be disturbed absent fraud or collusion. Where the auction was duly conducted, the bid accepted, sale confirmed and possession delivered, the purchaser&#039;s title remained secure even if the underlying dispute between other parties was later reopened. A belated challenge to the recovery proceedings was also unsustainable because the objector had abandoned earlier objections, did not pursue the available statutory appeal, and approached writ jurisdiction only after third-party rights had intervened. Delay, laches and an alternative remedy justified rejection of the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 988 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242772</link>
      <description>A confirmed court or statutory auction in favour of a bona fide third-party purchaser is protected and cannot be disturbed absent fraud or collusion. Where the auction was duly conducted, the bid accepted, sale confirmed and possession delivered, the purchaser&#039;s title remained secure even if the underlying dispute between other parties was later reopened. A belated challenge to the recovery proceedings was also unsustainable because the objector had abandoned earlier objections, did not pursue the available statutory appeal, and approached writ jurisdiction only after third-party rights had intervened. Delay, laches and an alternative remedy justified rejection of the challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>