<?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 (9) TMI 279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427334</link>
    <description>A liquidation purchaser who buys assets on an &quot;as is where is&quot; basis is not burdened with pre-auction dues once the creditor&#039;s claim has already been lodged with the liquidator and the sale proceeds have been distributed under the insolvency waterfall. The sale had been completed by full payment, issuance of the sale certificate and delivery of possession, and the realised amount was insufficient even for secured creditors. In that setting, fastening stale pre-sale liabilities on the purchaser would defeat the object of liquidation and the statutory distribution scheme. The challenge to transfer the property in the purchaser&#039;s name therefore failed, and the purchaser was not liable for the pre-auction dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 06:46:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427334</link>
      <description>A liquidation purchaser who buys assets on an &quot;as is where is&quot; basis is not burdened with pre-auction dues once the creditor&#039;s claim has already been lodged with the liquidator and the sale proceeds have been distributed under the insolvency waterfall. The sale had been completed by full payment, issuance of the sale certificate and delivery of possession, and the realised amount was insufficient even for secured creditors. In that setting, fastening stale pre-sale liabilities on the purchaser would defeat the object of liquidation and the statutory distribution scheme. The challenge to transfer the property in the purchaser&#039;s name therefore failed, and the purchaser was not liable for the pre-auction dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>