Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 31, 2024Case LawsAT
Key aspects of the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor in various tea gardens owned by the State of West Bengal. The NCLAT held that the leasehold rights are intangible assets covered u/s 18(f) of the IBC, empowering the Resolution Professional to take control. The renewals of leases for Kilcott, Garganda, and Bagrakote Tea Estates were deemed valid despite non-payment of Salami, as the renewed lease deeds mentioned Salami but did not specify any amount. The NCLAT set aside orders rejecting applications for possession of these three tea estates, holding that the Corporate Debtor had subsisting leasehold rights. However, for other tea estates where leases expired, the State's possession handover to third parties was upheld, except for Kilcott and Bagracote, where post-moratorium possession violated Section 14(1)(d). The NCLAT directed handing over possession of Garganda, Kilcott, and Bagracote Division-I to the Resolution Professional.
Key aspects of the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor in various tea gardens owned by the State of West Bengal. The NCLAT held that the leasehold rights are intangible assets covered u/s 18(f) of the IBC, empowering the Resolution Professional to take control. The renewals of leases for Kilcott, Garganda, and Bagrakote Tea Estates were deemed valid despite non-payment of Salami, as the renewed lease deeds mentioned Salami but did not specify any amount. The NCLAT set aside orders rejecting applications for possession of these three tea estates, holding that the Corporate Debtor had subsisting leasehold rights. However, for other tea estates where leases expired, the State's possession handover to third parties was upheld, except for Kilcott and Bagracote, where post-moratorium possession violated Section 14(1)(d). The NCLAT directed handing over possession of Garganda, Kilcott, and Bagracote Division-I to the Resolution Professional.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
