<?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>2004 (5) TMI 588 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187938</link>
    <description>A State Financial Corporation exercising sale powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 must act fairly and reasonably, secure the best possible price, and apply the realised proceeds in the statutory order. The Supreme Court noted that this requires valuation, adequate publicity, meaningful bidder participation, and a genuine sale process. On the facts, the corporation transferred the mortgaged assets before the auction process was completed, did not disclose or ascertain valuation, failed to invite matching offers, and did not insist on full consideration. The sale arrangement was therefore held to be in breach of section 29 and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 588 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187938</link>
      <description>A State Financial Corporation exercising sale powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 must act fairly and reasonably, secure the best possible price, and apply the realised proceeds in the statutory order. The Supreme Court noted that this requires valuation, adequate publicity, meaningful bidder participation, and a genuine sale process. On the facts, the corporation transferred the mortgaged assets before the auction process was completed, did not disclose or ascertain valuation, failed to invite matching offers, and did not insist on full consideration. The sale arrangement was therefore held to be in breach of section 29 and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>