<?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>2016 (5) TMI 982 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328001</link>
    <description>A court-supervised sale of secured assets under recovery proceedings remains within the Recovery Officer&#039;s jurisdiction where the process is conducted under the forum&#039;s orders, invites bidders, and confirms the highest bid through official orders. A confirmed sale may still be set aside if the purchaser persists in breaching binding sale conditions and Consent Terms, including deferred payment and related security obligations. Limitation objections based on Article 127 of the Limitation Act do not apply where the challenge concerns default in a recovery-sale framework governed by the Recovery of Debts Act and the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The writ petition was dismissed as without merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 10:33:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 982 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328001</link>
      <description>A court-supervised sale of secured assets under recovery proceedings remains within the Recovery Officer&#039;s jurisdiction where the process is conducted under the forum&#039;s orders, invites bidders, and confirms the highest bid through official orders. A confirmed sale may still be set aside if the purchaser persists in breaching binding sale conditions and Consent Terms, including deferred payment and related security obligations. Limitation objections based on Article 127 of the Limitation Act do not apply where the challenge concerns default in a recovery-sale framework governed by the Recovery of Debts Act and the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The writ petition was dismissed as without merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>