<?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 (9) TMI 2011 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799985</link>
    <description>Express liquidation-auction terms permitting forfeiture of the entire deposited amount upon a successful bidder&#039;s payment default remain effective despite Schedule I&#039;s ceiling on earnest money deposit. The deposited sum may include both earnest money and part sale consideration where the bidder voluntarily accepted the stipulated terms. An as-is-where-is sale, coupled with prior disclosure of title-related concerns, prevents reliance on those concerns to justify delayed payment. Repeated assurances without demonstrated financial capacity, proceedings involving another entity that do not prevent payment, and unsupported claims of unequal treatment do not defeat forfeiture. No refund is due where the bidder fails to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 2011 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799985</link>
      <description>Express liquidation-auction terms permitting forfeiture of the entire deposited amount upon a successful bidder&#039;s payment default remain effective despite Schedule I&#039;s ceiling on earnest money deposit. The deposited sum may include both earnest money and part sale consideration where the bidder voluntarily accepted the stipulated terms. An as-is-where-is sale, coupled with prior disclosure of title-related concerns, prevents reliance on those concerns to justify delayed payment. Repeated assurances without demonstrated financial capacity, proceedings involving another entity that do not prevent payment, and unsupported claims of unequal treatment do not defeat forfeiture. No refund is due where the bidder fails to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>