<?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>2026 (3) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787332</link>
    <description>Mandatory deposit requirements governing cooperative auction sales were treated as integral to the validity of the sale: failure to pay the balance purchase money within the prescribed time rendered the auction void, with forfeiture and resale as the statutory consequence. The revisional power under Section 154 was held broad enough to examine legality and propriety of the sale confirmation, and it was not excluded by the availability or non-use of the rule-based remedy to set aside the sale. A challenge to the auction based on the validity of the equitable mortgage was rejected because the award had attained finality and the property remained executable against the judgment-debtor&#039;s assets. The sale was therefore set aside and a fresh auction with refund and interest directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:35:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787332</link>
      <description>Mandatory deposit requirements governing cooperative auction sales were treated as integral to the validity of the sale: failure to pay the balance purchase money within the prescribed time rendered the auction void, with forfeiture and resale as the statutory consequence. The revisional power under Section 154 was held broad enough to examine legality and propriety of the sale confirmation, and it was not excluded by the availability or non-use of the rule-based remedy to set aside the sale. A challenge to the auction based on the validity of the equitable mortgage was rejected because the award had attained finality and the property remained executable against the judgment-debtor&#039;s assets. The sale was therefore set aside and a fresh auction with refund and interest directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>