https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754899 The Bombay HC ratified a sale agreement dated September 5, 2007, despite it being executed after commencement of winding up proceedings in August 2003. The court held that under Section 536(2) of Companies Act 1956, "void" means "voidable" rather than automatically null. The applicant conducted due diligence, paid full consideration, obtained necessary permissions, and settled outstanding dues. The court found the transaction bonafide, fair, and reasonable, warranting protection against unjust enrichment by the company. The equitable jurisdiction under Section 536(2) was exercised to validate the legitimate transaction. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2024 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754899 The Bombay HC ratified a sale agreement dated September 5, 2007, despite it being executed after commencement of winding up proceedings in August 2003. The court held that under Section 536(2) of Companies Act 1956, "void" means "voidable" rather than automatically null. The applicant conducted due diligence, paid full consideration, obtained necessary permissions, and settled outstanding dues. The court found the transaction bonafide, fair, and reasonable, warranting protection against unjust enrichment by the company. The equitable jurisdiction under Section 536(2) was exercised to validate the legitimate transaction. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754899