<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (10) TMI 769 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399795</link>
    <description>A going-concern sale in liquidation must follow the statutory scheme of grouping the relevant assets and liabilities together; a proposal to sell the corporate debtor as a going concern without liabilities, where only tangible assets were valued and intangible assets such as licences and brand value were omitted, was not permissible. Requests for continuation or renewal of licences, waiver of past non-compliances and penalties, and preservation of incentives and benefits were outside the adjudicating authority&#039;s jurisdiction in liquidation, as such reliefs would bind third parties or statutory authorities under other laws. The ancillary requests were therefore rejected, and the liquidator was directed to consider only a commercially viable proposal consistent with the insolvency framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:09:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 769 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399795</link>
      <description>A going-concern sale in liquidation must follow the statutory scheme of grouping the relevant assets and liabilities together; a proposal to sell the corporate debtor as a going concern without liabilities, where only tangible assets were valued and intangible assets such as licences and brand value were omitted, was not permissible. Requests for continuation or renewal of licences, waiver of past non-compliances and penalties, and preservation of incentives and benefits were outside the adjudicating authority&#039;s jurisdiction in liquidation, as such reliefs would bind third parties or statutory authorities under other laws. The ancillary requests were therefore rejected, and the liquidator was directed to consider only a commercially viable proposal consistent with the insolvency framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>