<?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>1920 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278034</link>
    <description>A court&#039;s discretion to sanction a private sale in winding-up must be exercised on proper notice, full disclosure, and adequate inquiry into value, especially where the asset is the company&#039;s principal property. An ex parte sanction made hastily and without sufficient material was treated as vulnerable to appellate interference and set aside because a public sale was likely to realise a better price for the estate. The resulting sale also fell with the sanction despite part-performance by the purchaser, because the transaction depended on an improper approval. Delay in appeal was excused on the facts, and the estate was protected by directing sale by public auction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:50:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1920 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278034</link>
      <description>A court&#039;s discretion to sanction a private sale in winding-up must be exercised on proper notice, full disclosure, and adequate inquiry into value, especially where the asset is the company&#039;s principal property. An ex parte sanction made hastily and without sufficient material was treated as vulnerable to appellate interference and set aside because a public sale was likely to realise a better price for the estate. The resulting sale also fell with the sanction despite part-performance by the purchaser, because the transaction depended on an improper approval. Delay in appeal was excused on the facts, and the estate was protected by directing sale by public auction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>