https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924 After the SICA rehabilitation regime had lapsed and the appellate proceedings had abated, GDCL had no subsisting authority to sell JUL and JAIL assets or alter JAIL shareholding; the subsequent allotments were therefore unsustainable. The Court also held that Article 142 cannot be used to validate unauthorised transactions, and legitimate expectation cannot override illegality or create ownership rights where none existed. Rehabilitation proposals from prospective investors were premature without prior asset identification and reliable valuation. The Court directed verification and payment of workmen's and provident fund dues, valuation of remaining assets, and administrative supervision, while treating the winding-up petition as infructuous. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2026 18:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924 After the SICA rehabilitation regime had lapsed and the appellate proceedings had abated, GDCL had no subsisting authority to sell JUL and JAIL assets or alter JAIL shareholding; the subsequent allotments were therefore unsustainable. The Court also held that Article 142 cannot be used to validate unauthorised transactions, and legitimate expectation cannot override illegality or create ownership rights where none existed. Rehabilitation proposals from prospective investors were premature without prior asset identification and reliable valuation. The Court directed verification and payment of workmen's and provident fund dues, valuation of remaining assets, and administrative supervision, while treating the winding-up petition as infructuous. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789924