https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287292 Directions in the earlier precedent on sale of industrial units by State Financial Corporations under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act were treated as guidelines for exercise of power, not rigid mandates. The Corporation substantially complied by informing the unit holder of the sale process, giving opportunities to revive the unit or improve offers, and assessing the unit before sale. The rejected competing offer was not shown to be superior when payment terms, electricity dues, down payment, and earnest money were considered. Article 226 interference was therefore limited to statutory breach or unfair, unreasonable action, and the High Court was not to re-evaluate the Corporation's commercial decision. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2020 11:41:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287292 Directions in the earlier precedent on sale of industrial units by State Financial Corporations under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act were treated as guidelines for exercise of power, not rigid mandates. The Corporation substantially complied by informing the unit holder of the sale process, giving opportunities to revive the unit or improve offers, and assessing the unit before sale. The rejected competing offer was not shown to be superior when payment terms, electricity dues, down payment, and earnest money were considered. Article 226 interference was therefore limited to statutory breach or unfair, unreasonable action, and the High Court was not to re-evaluate the Corporation's commercial decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287292