Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.