https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782571 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal, upholding forfeiture of the EMD. The Appellant had deposited EMD pursuant to the auction notice and tender document but failed to submit any bid in the e-auction. The Tribunal held that the tender document and e-auction notice were co-existent and formed a composite set of binding terms. Clause 11 of the auction notice, containing the forfeiture condition, applied automatically once the Appellant voluntarily participated by depositing EMD. As the Appellant's non-submission of a bid constituted breach of the auction conditions, refusal to refund the EMD was neither arbitrary nor illegal. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782571 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal, upholding forfeiture of the EMD. The Appellant had deposited EMD pursuant to the auction notice and tender document but failed to submit any bid in the e-auction. The Tribunal held that the tender document and e-auction notice were co-existent and formed a composite set of binding terms. Clause 11 of the auction notice, containing the forfeiture condition, applied automatically once the Appellant voluntarily participated by depositing EMD. As the Appellant's non-submission of a bid constituted breach of the auction conditions, refusal to refund the EMD was neither arbitrary nor illegal. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782571