https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431545 Where a corporate debtor's lease had already been validly cancelled and that cancellation had been unsuccessfully challenged, the debtor retained no subsisting interest in the premises and could not create enforceable third-party rights. A claimant deriving title under a later management contract therefore could not seek repossession, challenge RIICO's possession, or invoke Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because any grievance lay against the corporate debtor and not against the lessor. The order of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld and the appeal was rejected on merits. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431545 Where a corporate debtor's lease had already been validly cancelled and that cancellation had been unsuccessfully challenged, the debtor retained no subsisting interest in the premises and could not create enforceable third-party rights. A claimant deriving title under a later management contract therefore could not seek repossession, challenge RIICO's possession, or invoke Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because any grievance lay against the corporate debtor and not against the lessor. The order of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld and the appeal was rejected on merits. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431545