https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465150 NCLAT allowed the appeal filed by the liquidator and set aside the impugned NCLT order which had effectively granted relief to the auction purchaser. It held that under the e-auction process document and Liquidation Regulations, the timelines for payment of balance sale consideration are statutory, and the successful bidder was bound to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, failing which forfeiture applied. The respondent's wilful default and attempt to re-agitate the matter through a subsequent application under Section 60(5) of the Code was held impermissible and an overreach. Consequently, forfeiture of the amount deposited was upheld and no refund was directed. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 18:58:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465150 NCLAT allowed the appeal filed by the liquidator and set aside the impugned NCLT order which had effectively granted relief to the auction purchaser. It held that under the e-auction process document and Liquidation Regulations, the timelines for payment of balance sale consideration are statutory, and the successful bidder was bound to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, failing which forfeiture applied. The respondent's wilful default and attempt to re-agitate the matter through a subsequent application under Section 60(5) of the Code was held impermissible and an overreach. Consequently, forfeiture of the amount deposited was upheld and no refund was directed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465150