<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1472 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270168</link>
    <description>A secured creditor enforcing security under the SARFAESI framework may sell secured assets without supervision or fetters from the Company Court or Official Liquidator, because the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for notice, possession, sale, distribution of proceeds, and protection of workmen&#039;s dues. The borrower company, acting through the Official Liquidator, retains the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI regime. A concluded and confirmed auction sale is not ordinarily reopened merely because a later higher offer is received; interference is justified only where illegality, fraud, collusion, or gross inadequacy affecting fairness is shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1472 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270168</link>
      <description>A secured creditor enforcing security under the SARFAESI framework may sell secured assets without supervision or fetters from the Company Court or Official Liquidator, because the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for notice, possession, sale, distribution of proceeds, and protection of workmen&#039;s dues. The borrower company, acting through the Official Liquidator, retains the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI regime. A concluded and confirmed auction sale is not ordinarily reopened merely because a later higher offer is received; interference is justified only where illegality, fraud, collusion, or gross inadequacy affecting fairness is shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>