<?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 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761747</link>
    <description>The approved resolution plan, once sanctioned under the insolvency framework, bound all stakeholders, including municipal authorities, and the prima facie view was that statutory dues not included in the plan stood extinguished for the period before the effective date. Because the municipal authority had not filed its claim in the corporate insolvency process and the demand did not form part of the approved plan, recovery proceedings for that pre-plan period could not continue. The authority&#039;s reliance on a later Supreme Court ruling on statutory dues did not displace that prima facie position. Interim protection was therefore granted and the property tax demand was stayed to the extent it related to the petitioner&#039;s flats for the pre-effective-date period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761747</link>
      <description>The approved resolution plan, once sanctioned under the insolvency framework, bound all stakeholders, including municipal authorities, and the prima facie view was that statutory dues not included in the plan stood extinguished for the period before the effective date. Because the municipal authority had not filed its claim in the corporate insolvency process and the demand did not form part of the approved plan, recovery proceedings for that pre-plan period could not continue. The authority&#039;s reliance on a later Supreme Court ruling on statutory dues did not displace that prima facie position. Interim protection was therefore granted and the property tax demand was stayed to the extent it related to the petitioner&#039;s flats for the pre-effective-date period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>