<?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>2024 (9) TMI 1254 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759010</link>
    <description>A resolution plan cannot include property not owned by the corporate debtor or extinguish third-party rights without proof of ownership or lawful termination. The plan was therefore required to exclude land recorded in third-party names and could not cancel a subsisting lease or take over the lessee&#039;s building in breach of the lease terms and due process. Homebuyer claims supported by allotment letters, registered agreements and ledger material were wrongly rejected and had to be accepted as allottee claims. No interference was warranted with the valuation exercise or the treatment of operational creditors and employees absent a demonstrated statutory violation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 10:54:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1254 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759010</link>
      <description>A resolution plan cannot include property not owned by the corporate debtor or extinguish third-party rights without proof of ownership or lawful termination. The plan was therefore required to exclude land recorded in third-party names and could not cancel a subsisting lease or take over the lessee&#039;s building in breach of the lease terms and due process. Homebuyer claims supported by allotment letters, registered agreements and ledger material were wrongly rejected and had to be accepted as allottee claims. No interference was warranted with the valuation exercise or the treatment of operational creditors and employees absent a demonstrated statutory violation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>