<?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>2006 (4) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196890</link>
    <description>Order XXI Rule 90 CPC permits setting aside a court auction sale only where material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale is specifically pleaded and proved, and where the applicant also shows substantial injury caused by that defect. Mere allegations of collusion or inadequate publicity are insufficient. On the stated facts, the prescribed proclamation procedure was followed, notice was pasted on the property and pamphlets were distributed locally, and no reliable evidence showed that the property would have fetched a higher price or that the upset price was wrongly fixed. The sale was therefore treated as validly confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196890</link>
      <description>Order XXI Rule 90 CPC permits setting aside a court auction sale only where material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale is specifically pleaded and proved, and where the applicant also shows substantial injury caused by that defect. Mere allegations of collusion or inadequate publicity are insufficient. On the stated facts, the prescribed proclamation procedure was followed, notice was pasted on the property and pamphlets were distributed locally, and no reliable evidence showed that the property would have fetched a higher price or that the upset price was wrongly fixed. The sale was therefore treated as validly confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>