<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1871 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773758</link>
    <description>A challenger to a tender or auction process must still show prima facie eligibility and a genuine interest in participating, even when attacking the validity of the process itself. On the pleadings here, the plaintiff did not adequately establish locus standi or a cause of action because eligibility to submit an expression of interest was not sufficiently shown and the challenge was raised immediately on publication. The Swiss Challenge auction framework was treated as a recognised bidding method, and the disclosure of reserve price, mark-up price, and access to further materials for shortlisted bidders did not, at that stage, show opacity or breach of the RBI Master Direction on transfer of loan exposures. Interim restraint was therefore considered unwarranted on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:31:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1871 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773758</link>
      <description>A challenger to a tender or auction process must still show prima facie eligibility and a genuine interest in participating, even when attacking the validity of the process itself. On the pleadings here, the plaintiff did not adequately establish locus standi or a cause of action because eligibility to submit an expression of interest was not sufficiently shown and the challenge was raised immediately on publication. The Swiss Challenge auction framework was treated as a recognised bidding method, and the disclosure of reserve price, mark-up price, and access to further materials for shortlisted bidders did not, at that stage, show opacity or breach of the RBI Master Direction on transfer of loan exposures. Interim restraint was therefore considered unwarranted on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>