https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101289 NCLAT held that a concluded liquidation auction could not be set aside merely because a higher price was expected where the e-auction was publicly advertised, properly conducted, and free from fraud, collusion, underbidding or any fundamental procedural defect. It found that the earlier Lot 2 bid covered the entire area, while the additional land emerged as a separate plot after subdivision; the liquidator's earlier communications were only part of a price-discovery exercise and not a private sale. The successful bidder was an aggrieved person entitled to appeal, and the order for re-auction was reversed, with the sale restored and the sale certificate directed to be issued. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101289 NCLAT held that a concluded liquidation auction could not be set aside merely because a higher price was expected where the e-auction was publicly advertised, properly conducted, and free from fraud, collusion, underbidding or any fundamental procedural defect. It found that the earlier Lot 2 bid covered the entire area, while the additional land emerged as a separate plot after subdivision; the liquidator's earlier communications were only part of a price-discovery exercise and not a private sale. The successful bidder was an aggrieved person entitled to appeal, and the order for re-auction was reversed, with the sale restored and the sale certificate directed to be issued. Highlights IBC Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101289