https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458427 The Bombay HC rejected an appeal challenging disposal of mortgaged property under earlier orders. The court held that financial institutions and guarantors can enter into compromise agreements in Section 9 applications. Since parties filed consent terms and proceeded accordingly, with the sale confirmed up to the SC, further proceedings cannot be halted by appellants who themselves filed the consent terms. The property belonged to the guarantor, not the company subject to BIFR proceedings. The court found no bar to executing the sale as rights crystallized before BIFR application filing, and no coercive steps were taken against the company's property during pending BIFR proceedings. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458427 The Bombay HC rejected an appeal challenging disposal of mortgaged property under earlier orders. The court held that financial institutions and guarantors can enter into compromise agreements in Section 9 applications. Since parties filed consent terms and proceeded accordingly, with the sale confirmed up to the SC, further proceedings cannot be halted by appellants who themselves filed the consent terms. The property belonged to the guarantor, not the company subject to BIFR proceedings. The court found no bar to executing the sale as rights crystallized before BIFR application filing, and no coercive steps were taken against the company's property during pending BIFR proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458427