https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269117 Contractual interpretation of the business transfer and supplementary agreements showed no transfer of Plant No. 2 to the appellant, because the defined business assets covered Plant No. 1 only and Plant No. 2 was separately treated as the site for toll manufacturing/job work. The ancillary documents, including secondment, job work and equipment lease arrangements, supported the conclusion that possession and day-to-day control of Plant No. 2 remained with the respondent company. On the evidence, the appellant failed to establish any right over Plant No. 2, while the Company Law Board's order directing handover of charge and granting protection to the respondent was within jurisdiction and not vitiated by natural justice concerns. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Dec 2015 09:30:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269117 Contractual interpretation of the business transfer and supplementary agreements showed no transfer of Plant No. 2 to the appellant, because the defined business assets covered Plant No. 1 only and Plant No. 2 was separately treated as the site for toll manufacturing/job work. The ancillary documents, including secondment, job work and equipment lease arrangements, supported the conclusion that possession and day-to-day control of Plant No. 2 remained with the respondent company. On the evidence, the appellant failed to establish any right over Plant No. 2, while the Company Law Board's order directing handover of charge and granting protection to the respondent was within jurisdiction and not vitiated by natural justice concerns. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269117