https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382940 Termination of a subsisting mining lease during the moratorium was held to fall within Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 because it amounted to recovery of property from the corporate debtor and destroyed its continuing leasehold interest needed to run the business as a going concern. The action was therefore liable to be set aside. The Code was further held to override inconsistent mining law restrictions under Section 238, so the lease could continue under the deemed extension mechanism in Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with consequential execution of supplement deeds and extension of the lease period. en-us Fri, 03 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:53:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382940 Termination of a subsisting mining lease during the moratorium was held to fall within Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 because it amounted to recovery of property from the corporate debtor and destroyed its continuing leasehold interest needed to run the business as a going concern. The action was therefore liable to be set aside. The Code was further held to override inconsistent mining law restrictions under Section 238, so the lease could continue under the deemed extension mechanism in Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with consequential execution of supplement deeds and extension of the lease period. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 03 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382940