https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403521 The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and its inherent powers to hear an application connected with implementation of an approved resolution plan, despite an alternate remedy. It further held that once the resolution plan was approved, pre-existing revenue recovery entries and the corresponding charge over the corporate debtor's immovable property could not survive, because the assets stood transferred to the successful resolution applicant free from encumbrances and inconsistent recovery measures were overridden. The continuing land record entry was found to impede implementation of the plan, so the entry and charge had to be removed and the record updated in favour of the successful resolution applicant. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2021 06:48:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403521 The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and its inherent powers to hear an application connected with implementation of an approved resolution plan, despite an alternate remedy. It further held that once the resolution plan was approved, pre-existing revenue recovery entries and the corresponding charge over the corporate debtor's immovable property could not survive, because the assets stood transferred to the successful resolution applicant free from encumbrances and inconsistent recovery measures were overridden. The continuing land record entry was found to impede implementation of the plan, so the entry and charge had to be removed and the record updated in favour of the successful resolution applicant. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403521