<?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 (4) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924</link>
    <description>After abatement of the revival proceedings under the insolvency regime, GDCL had no subsisting authority to deal with the assets or shareholding of JUL and JAIL, and legitimate expectation or Article 142 could not validate unauthorized acts. The Court held that the JAIL share allotment was illegal and set aside the undisclosed scrap sale at the Sawai Madhopur unit with refund and interest, while leaving other impugned sales undisturbed for want of necessary parties and evidence. It rejected third-party rehabilitation proposals as premature because no proper valuation or inventory had been made and the unit was not realistically revivable. Workmen&#039;s dues were to be verified and paid expeditiously under an administrator&#039;s supervision, with asset inventory and valuation directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924</link>
      <description>After abatement of the revival proceedings under the insolvency regime, GDCL had no subsisting authority to deal with the assets or shareholding of JUL and JAIL, and legitimate expectation or Article 142 could not validate unauthorized acts. The Court held that the JAIL share allotment was illegal and set aside the undisclosed scrap sale at the Sawai Madhopur unit with refund and interest, while leaving other impugned sales undisturbed for want of necessary parties and evidence. It rejected third-party rehabilitation proposals as premature because no proper valuation or inventory had been made and the unit was not realistically revivable. Workmen&#039;s dues were to be verified and paid expeditiously under an administrator&#039;s supervision, with asset inventory and valuation directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>