<?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 (10) TMI 1551 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760952</link>
    <description>Development rights created in favour of a corporate debtor constitute property and an asset within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the resolution professional may preserve and protect possession of the project land as part of the insolvency estate. The record, including the development agreement, consent award, powers of attorney, assignment agreement, arbitral possession order, and pleadings, supported possession with the corporate debtor and the resolution professional, making the contrary finding unsustainable. The adjudicating authority was competent to decide possession and need not refer the matter to a civil court merely because title remained with the landowners. The project land was therefore not liable to be excluded from the corporate insolvency resolution process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1551 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760952</link>
      <description>Development rights created in favour of a corporate debtor constitute property and an asset within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the resolution professional may preserve and protect possession of the project land as part of the insolvency estate. The record, including the development agreement, consent award, powers of attorney, assignment agreement, arbitral possession order, and pleadings, supported possession with the corporate debtor and the resolution professional, making the contrary finding unsustainable. The adjudicating authority was competent to decide possession and need not refer the matter to a civil court merely because title remained with the landowners. The project land was therefore not liable to be excluded from the corporate insolvency resolution process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>