<?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>2019 (10) TMI 279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL SINGLE BENCH, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386795</link>
    <description>A bidder who accepts e-auction terms unconditionally is bound by the forfeiture clause if the balance sale consideration is not paid within the stipulated or extended time. Here, the tender conditions and success intimation expressly provided that default would result in complete forfeiture of the EMD and further payments, with the property to be sold afresh. Because the bidder failed to comply while the next highest bidder paid and completed the purchase, the Liquidator was entitled to act under the auction terms and forfeit the entire deposited amount. The refund request was therefore rejected on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:33:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL SINGLE BENCH, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386795</link>
      <description>A bidder who accepts e-auction terms unconditionally is bound by the forfeiture clause if the balance sale consideration is not paid within the stipulated or extended time. Here, the tender conditions and success intimation expressly provided that default would result in complete forfeiture of the EMD and further payments, with the property to be sold afresh. Because the bidder failed to comply while the next highest bidder paid and completed the purchase, the Liquidator was entitled to act under the auction terms and forfeit the entire deposited amount. The refund request was therefore rejected on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>