https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465149 The AT dismissed the appeal, upholding the liquidator's competence to forfeit both the earnest money deposit and part payment of sale consideration upon the appellant's failure to complete the e-auction transaction. The Tribunal found that the appellant, as highest bidder, had clear notice through the e-auction information document and the subsequent term sheet that, in case of default, the liquidator could forfeit not only EMD but any part payments. Section 74 of the Contract Act was held not to invalidate such forfeiture in these circumstances. The AT distinguished the precedent involving only EMD and followed its own prior decision in a similar liquidation auction context, affirming that no refund was due and rejecting the appellant's challenge to the liquidator's authority. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 14:47:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465149 The AT dismissed the appeal, upholding the liquidator's competence to forfeit both the earnest money deposit and part payment of sale consideration upon the appellant's failure to complete the e-auction transaction. The Tribunal found that the appellant, as highest bidder, had clear notice through the e-auction information document and the subsequent term sheet that, in case of default, the liquidator could forfeit not only EMD but any part payments. Section 74 of the Contract Act was held not to invalidate such forfeiture in these circumstances. The AT distinguished the precedent involving only EMD and followed its own prior decision in a similar liquidation auction context, affirming that no refund was due and rejecting the appellant's challenge to the liquidator's authority. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465149