https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795549 Auction disqualification applied where provident fund dues of a tea estate manager-director remained unpaid on the auction date. Clause XIV barred provident fund defaulters, and the company's own representations and payments showed that it substantively managed the estate through that director; separate corporate personality could not be used to avoid the condition. Cancellation of the bid was therefore valid. Recorded evidence that both bidders' earnest money deposits originated from the same bank account also supported an inference of collusion. In judicial review involving public interest, a contemporaneous alternative ground may support administrative action despite omission from the cancellation communication, provided fairness is maintained. No enforceable right to sale confirmation or possession arose. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795549 Auction disqualification applied where provident fund dues of a tea estate manager-director remained unpaid on the auction date. Clause XIV barred provident fund defaulters, and the company's own representations and payments showed that it substantively managed the estate through that director; separate corporate personality could not be used to avoid the condition. Cancellation of the bid was therefore valid. Recorded evidence that both bidders' earnest money deposits originated from the same bank account also supported an inference of collusion. In judicial review involving public interest, a contemporaneous alternative ground may support administrative action despite omission from the cancellation communication, provided fairness is maintained. No enforceable right to sale confirmation or possession arose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795549