<?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 (12) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783231</link>
    <description>SC upheld NCLAT and NCLT orders confirming forfeiture of the appellant-purchaser&#039;s payment of Rs.37.80 crores and dismissal of its challenge. The Court held that the failed auction in July 2021 concluded the auction process, and the subsequent transaction was a private sale requiring NCLT approval, falling outside Regulation 33(2)(c) of the Liquidation Regulations. The appellant accepted NCLT&#039;s extension of time with an express forfeiture condition and, having defaulted on payment, could not later contest that condition or approbate and reprobate. SC also noted the appellant&#039;s lack of bona fides in simultaneously pursuing remedies before NCLAT and HC, amounting to abuse of process. Appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783231</link>
      <description>SC upheld NCLAT and NCLT orders confirming forfeiture of the appellant-purchaser&#039;s payment of Rs.37.80 crores and dismissal of its challenge. The Court held that the failed auction in July 2021 concluded the auction process, and the subsequent transaction was a private sale requiring NCLT approval, falling outside Regulation 33(2)(c) of the Liquidation Regulations. The appellant accepted NCLT&#039;s extension of time with an express forfeiture condition and, having defaulted on payment, could not later contest that condition or approbate and reprobate. SC also noted the appellant&#039;s lack of bona fides in simultaneously pursuing remedies before NCLAT and HC, amounting to abuse of process. Appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>