https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750795 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where a successful resolution applicant sought ownership of leasehold rights without paying enhanced land costs demanded by a public authority. The tribunal held that IBC provisions under Section 238 do not override rights of public sector land development authorities over their assets. Following SC precedent in MCGM v. Abhilash Lal, the court ruled that transfers to resolution applicants must comply with original lease terms and authority policies. Since the enhanced land cost demand preceded CIRP initiation and wasn't disclosed to the resolution professional or committee of creditors, the clean slate principle was inapplicable. The payment was required to clear title defects, not linked to CIRP proceedings. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750795 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where a successful resolution applicant sought ownership of leasehold rights without paying enhanced land costs demanded by a public authority. The tribunal held that IBC provisions under Section 238 do not override rights of public sector land development authorities over their assets. Following SC precedent in MCGM v. Abhilash Lal, the court ruled that transfers to resolution applicants must comply with original lease terms and authority policies. Since the enhanced land cost demand preceded CIRP initiation and wasn't disclosed to the resolution professional or committee of creditors, the clean slate principle was inapplicable. The payment was required to clear title defects, not linked to CIRP proceedings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750795