<?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 (8) TMI 259 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441280</link>
    <description>The Liquidator&#039;s appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed as a fraudulent transaction under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority found the Liquidator failed to prove the sale was fraudulent, emphasizing the payment evidence and recitals in the sale deed as sufficient to uphold the transaction&#039;s validity. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in registration was justified due to prior encumbrances, and the respondent&#039;s continuous possession of the property since 1989 was deemed evidence of a genuine transaction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2023 16:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 259 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441280</link>
      <description>The Liquidator&#039;s appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed as a fraudulent transaction under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority found the Liquidator failed to prove the sale was fraudulent, emphasizing the payment evidence and recitals in the sale deed as sufficient to uphold the transaction&#039;s validity. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in registration was justified due to prior encumbrances, and the respondent&#039;s continuous possession of the property since 1989 was deemed evidence of a genuine transaction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>