https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436851 In a liquidation auction sold on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, a successful bidder cannot refuse to pay the balance sale consideration merely because title disputes or related litigation remain pending. Where the auction notice discloses encumbrances and litigation, the bidder is expected to conduct its own due diligence before bidding. The payment timetable under Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 is treated as mandatory, and a third-party writ petition or suit does not excuse non-compliance with that schedule. On that reasoning, rejection of the bidder's application to withhold payment was justified in law. en-us Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436851 In a liquidation auction sold on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, a successful bidder cannot refuse to pay the balance sale consideration merely because title disputes or related litigation remain pending. Where the auction notice discloses encumbrances and litigation, the bidder is expected to conduct its own due diligence before bidding. The payment timetable under Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 is treated as mandatory, and a third-party writ petition or suit does not excuse non-compliance with that schedule. On that reasoning, rejection of the bidder's application to withhold payment was justified in law. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436851