<?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 (12) TMI 478 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431361</link>
    <description>An agreement to sell does not, by itself, create title or ownership in immovable property, especially where the lease deed restricts transfer unless the unit is functional and prior lessor approval is obtained. Because the appellant had no registered conveyance, no completed construction and no required approval, the project land could be treated as part of the corporate debtor&#039;s assets for insolvency purposes. The resolution professional&#039;s control over the land was therefore within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework, and the mere pendency of applications seeking exclusion of the land did not by itself invalidate approval of the resolution plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:08:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 478 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431361</link>
      <description>An agreement to sell does not, by itself, create title or ownership in immovable property, especially where the lease deed restricts transfer unless the unit is functional and prior lessor approval is obtained. Because the appellant had no registered conveyance, no completed construction and no required approval, the project land could be treated as part of the corporate debtor&#039;s assets for insolvency purposes. The resolution professional&#039;s control over the land was therefore within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework, and the mere pendency of applications seeking exclusion of the land did not by itself invalidate approval of the resolution plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>