<?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>2022 (7) TMI 99 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424544</link>
    <description>A lease created after a secured creditor&#039;s enforcement notice, at rent far below fair rent and in circumstances suggesting asset shielding, was treated as an undervalued and fraudulent transfer under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The challenged tenancy was therefore liable to be avoided and neutralised for the corporate debtor&#039;s estate. Consequential reliefs included restoration of control of the premises through vacant possession, directions for removal of the occupant&#039;s establishment after approval of the resolution plan, protection of the resolution applicant from third-party liabilities, occupation charges for continued use, and assistance from public authorities if required. A separate request for disclosure of resolution plans was rejected as infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 99 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424544</link>
      <description>A lease created after a secured creditor&#039;s enforcement notice, at rent far below fair rent and in circumstances suggesting asset shielding, was treated as an undervalued and fraudulent transfer under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The challenged tenancy was therefore liable to be avoided and neutralised for the corporate debtor&#039;s estate. Consequential reliefs included restoration of control of the premises through vacant possession, directions for removal of the occupant&#039;s establishment after approval of the resolution plan, protection of the resolution applicant from third-party liabilities, occupation charges for continued use, and assistance from public authorities if required. A separate request for disclosure of resolution plans was rejected as infructuous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>