<?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 (4) TMI 1079 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437053</link>
    <description>A leave and licence arrangement over corporate debtor premises had expired, and no subsisting tenancy was established; the occupant was therefore treated as a licensee in illegal occupation after expiry. In liquidation, the National Company Law Tribunal could exercise residuary jurisdiction over disputes concerning vacation and protection of assets, as the liquidator&#039;s duty to preserve and secure the liquidation estate justified directions for possession. A later status quo order from the Court of Small Causes did not prevent the NCLT from acting, because the insolvency framework prevailed over inconsistent parallel proceedings and the status quo order was obtained without full disclosure and without impleading the necessary party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1079 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437053</link>
      <description>A leave and licence arrangement over corporate debtor premises had expired, and no subsisting tenancy was established; the occupant was therefore treated as a licensee in illegal occupation after expiry. In liquidation, the National Company Law Tribunal could exercise residuary jurisdiction over disputes concerning vacation and protection of assets, as the liquidator&#039;s duty to preserve and secure the liquidation estate justified directions for possession. A later status quo order from the Court of Small Causes did not prevent the NCLT from acting, because the insolvency framework prevailed over inconsistent parallel proceedings and the status quo order was obtained without full disclosure and without impleading the necessary party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>