Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
