https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196219 A sale of a company's immovable properties was examined against Rule 66 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, read with section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The record did not show compliance with the statutory prerequisites for a Rule 66 sale, including a valid postponement order, authorisation for private sale, or observance of the attached safeguards, so the transaction was not treated as a valid statutory recovery sale. However, because the sale had been acted upon, secured creditors had been paid, and workmen and statutory dues had been settled, the Court declined to unsettle the completed arrangements and refused to declare the sale void under sections 536(2) and 537 of the Companies Act. en-us Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:23:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196219 A sale of a company's immovable properties was examined against Rule 66 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, read with section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The record did not show compliance with the statutory prerequisites for a Rule 66 sale, including a valid postponement order, authorisation for private sale, or observance of the attached safeguards, so the transaction was not treated as a valid statutory recovery sale. However, because the sale had been acted upon, secured creditors had been paid, and workmen and statutory dues had been settled, the Court declined to unsettle the completed arrangements and refused to declare the sale void under sections 536(2) and 537 of the Companies Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196219