<?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 (10) TMI 890 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429332</link>
    <description>Where a contract for sale reserves ownership in the seller until full payment, title does not pass merely on delivery of the bill of lading. The document explains that a bill of lading is a document of title, but its effect depends on the parties&#039; intention and the payment condition in the purchase orders and invoices. Because the balance price remained unpaid, the transaction was treated as an agreement to sell, and the seller retained title and the rights of an unpaid seller. Goods not owned by the corporate debtor cannot be treated as its assets in resolution, so the equipment had to be returned to the seller, while the separate claim for usage charges was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:04:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 890 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429332</link>
      <description>Where a contract for sale reserves ownership in the seller until full payment, title does not pass merely on delivery of the bill of lading. The document explains that a bill of lading is a document of title, but its effect depends on the parties&#039; intention and the payment condition in the purchase orders and invoices. Because the balance price remained unpaid, the transaction was treated as an agreement to sell, and the seller retained title and the rights of an unpaid seller. Goods not owned by the corporate debtor cannot be treated as its assets in resolution, so the equipment had to be returned to the seller, while the separate claim for usage charges was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>