https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310937 The rejection of a request for deemed extension of a mining lease was found inconsistent with the moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because the corporate insolvency resolution process had already commenced when the rejection order was passed. The lease extension request was also considered under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which supported continuation of the lease until 31.03.2020. The rejection order was set aside and the respondents were directed to execute supplement deeds extending the mining lease up to that date. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310937 The rejection of a request for deemed extension of a mining lease was found inconsistent with the moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because the corporate insolvency resolution process had already commenced when the rejection order was passed. The lease extension request was also considered under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which supported continuation of the lease until 31.03.2020. The rejection order was set aside and the respondents were directed to execute supplement deeds extending the mining lease up to that date. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310937