https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410019 A fresh auction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was not interfered with because the controlling objective remained securing the best possible price for the asset. The earlier direction contemplated association of the Official Liquidator and protection of workers' interests, but the corporation was entitled to seek a better valuation where only one bid had been received and no comparative market value was available. Mere submission of the highest offer did not create an indefeasible right to confirmation of sale. The challenge to the rejection of the bid and the request to stay or quash the fresh auction were declined, while the auction was directed to proceed under the earlier conditions with the Official Liquidator involved. en-us Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:58:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410019 A fresh auction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was not interfered with because the controlling objective remained securing the best possible price for the asset. The earlier direction contemplated association of the Official Liquidator and protection of workers' interests, but the corporation was entitled to seek a better valuation where only one bid had been received and no comparative market value was available. Mere submission of the highest offer did not create an indefeasible right to confirmation of sale. The challenge to the rejection of the bid and the request to stay or quash the fresh auction were declined, while the auction was directed to proceed under the earlier conditions with the Official Liquidator involved. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410019