<?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 715 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793334</link>
    <description>In a liquidation auction for sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern, the bid documents and prior consultations could not be used to enlarge the sale beyond the stated terms or to include subsidiary, third-party, joint venture or associate assets, which were outside the liquidation estate. The request to extend time for payment of the balance consideration was rejected because the payment schedule had already been settled and could not be reopened without legal basis. The cancellation challenge failed for non-compliance with the payment terms, but forfeiture of the deposited amount did not receive a final majority determination and was referred for decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:36:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 715 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793334</link>
      <description>In a liquidation auction for sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern, the bid documents and prior consultations could not be used to enlarge the sale beyond the stated terms or to include subsidiary, third-party, joint venture or associate assets, which were outside the liquidation estate. The request to extend time for payment of the balance consideration was rejected because the payment schedule had already been settled and could not be reopened without legal basis. The cancellation challenge failed for non-compliance with the payment terms, but forfeiture of the deposited amount did not receive a final majority determination and was referred for decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>