https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761816 Development rights constitute property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the insolvency tribunal could determine whether the subject land formed part of the corporate debtor's assets and the parties were not required to go to civil court. A termination order passed by a sole arbitrator under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not an arbitral award and does not carry finality under Sections 34 and 35. The IRP/RP was therefore entitled to include the subject land in the information memorandum and CIRP, and the explanation to Section 18(1)(f) did not bar that inclusion. The refusal to exclude the land from CIRP and the allowance of intervention by the successful resolution applicant were upheld. en-us Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761816 Development rights constitute property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the insolvency tribunal could determine whether the subject land formed part of the corporate debtor's assets and the parties were not required to go to civil court. A termination order passed by a sole arbitrator under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not an arbitral award and does not carry finality under Sections 34 and 35. The IRP/RP was therefore entitled to include the subject land in the information memorandum and CIRP, and the explanation to Section 18(1)(f) did not bar that inclusion. The refusal to exclude the land from CIRP and the allowance of intervention by the successful resolution applicant were upheld. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761816