<?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>2023 (3) TMI 699 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435313</link>
    <description>Development rights, exclusive possession, and related interests created in favour of a corporate debtor in immovable property can fall within the wide meaning of &quot;property&quot; and &quot;asset&quot; under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so they must be reflected in the information memorandum and protected by the resolution professional under Sections 18 and 25. The insolvency fora were also entitled to preserve the corporate debtor&#039;s possession and balance it against a third party&#039;s limited permissive occupation, because the exclusion in the Explanation to Section 18 did not limit the broader duties under Section 25. The directions were within jurisdiction, and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 699 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435313</link>
      <description>Development rights, exclusive possession, and related interests created in favour of a corporate debtor in immovable property can fall within the wide meaning of &quot;property&quot; and &quot;asset&quot; under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so they must be reflected in the information memorandum and protected by the resolution professional under Sections 18 and 25. The insolvency fora were also entitled to preserve the corporate debtor&#039;s possession and balance it against a third party&#039;s limited permissive occupation, because the exclusion in the Explanation to Section 18 did not limit the broader duties under Section 25. The directions were within jurisdiction, and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>