<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (11) TMI 1138 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458463</link>
    <description>The Court recognised that time for deposit of auction sale consideration may be enlarged under the Companies (Court) Rules where justice requires, and upheld the Company Judge&#039;s discretion because the extension was conditioned on 24% simple interest, adequately protecting secured creditors. Post-sale bids could not unsettle a confirmed sale merely because a higher price was later offered, particularly where no challenge was made to the confirmation order and one prospective bidder had withdrawn. The appeal by the company under liquidation was also found not maintainable because its interests were already represented by the Official Liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 10:52:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 1138 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458463</link>
      <description>The Court recognised that time for deposit of auction sale consideration may be enlarged under the Companies (Court) Rules where justice requires, and upheld the Company Judge&#039;s discretion because the extension was conditioned on 24% simple interest, adequately protecting secured creditors. Post-sale bids could not unsettle a confirmed sale merely because a higher price was later offered, particularly where no challenge was made to the confirmation order and one prospective bidder had withdrawn. The appeal by the company under liquidation was also found not maintainable because its interests were already represented by the Official Liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>