<?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 (6) TMI 67 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792686</link>
    <description>In a liquidation sale context, a bona fide bidder was held not to have abandoned the e-auction where the record showed repeated logins, document upload, EMD deposit, and a contemporaneous complaint that the pre-qualification link was unavailable. The tribunal accepted that a technical glitch on the auction platform could not be ruled out, especially without any rebuttal from the platform operator, and set aside the adverse finding on that issue. It further held that a substantially higher offer and deposited amount justified interference with the concluded auction in aid of value maximization, and directed a fresh e-auction at a revised reserve price.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 08:47:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 67 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792686</link>
      <description>In a liquidation sale context, a bona fide bidder was held not to have abandoned the e-auction where the record showed repeated logins, document upload, EMD deposit, and a contemporaneous complaint that the pre-qualification link was unavailable. The tribunal accepted that a technical glitch on the auction platform could not be ruled out, especially without any rebuttal from the platform operator, and set aside the adverse finding on that issue. It further held that a substantially higher offer and deposited amount justified interference with the concluded auction in aid of value maximization, and directed a fresh e-auction at a revised reserve price.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>