No, the provided legal document does not support or discuss the statement that "the statutory rules only require consent if the bid is less than the reserve price."

The document is a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (Sections 4, 5, 26C), the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts, and related provisions under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (e.g., Sections 21, 35A, 36(1)). It addresses banks' authority to increase interest rates to pass on the exact burden of interest tax to borrowers on term loans, ruling that "grossing up" calculations and rounding up rates to the next 0.25% (e.g., from 10.30% to 10.50%) were illegal, arbitrary, and without statutory jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Key holdings include: - Section 26C permits rate increases only to the precise extent of the tax liability calculated on the original contractual interest (e.g., for Rs. 100 principal at 10% interest, tax at 3% yields Rs. 10 interest + Rs. 0.30 tax = Rs. 10.30 total, not rounded up). (!) (!) (!) (!) - Banks cannot exceed this via executive interpretation, RBI approval, or contractual powers; any excess constitutes unjust enrichment. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - No provisions mention auctions, bids, reserve prices, or consent requirements in any context.

The document contains no reference to bidding processes, reserve prices, or conditional consent rules. The query appears unrelated to the subject matter (interest tax recovery on loans). If this pertains to a different statute (e.g., auction/sale rules under SARFAESI, IBC, or transfer of property laws), provide the relevant document for analysis.