<?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 (12) TMI 1313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763733</link>
    <description>A slump sale agreement was treated as incapable of transferring completed title in immovable property where no registered conveyance deed had been executed, especially because the agreement itself contemplated registration for transfer. The absence of documentary support for the alleged unsecured loan forming part of the consideration further undermined the transaction. On the stated facts, the arrangement was regarded as preferential and undervalued, with indications of an attempt to defeat creditors, and the analysis also referred to wrongful trading. The challenge to the order failed, and the setting aside of the agreement together with return of the assets was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763733</link>
      <description>A slump sale agreement was treated as incapable of transferring completed title in immovable property where no registered conveyance deed had been executed, especially because the agreement itself contemplated registration for transfer. The absence of documentary support for the alleged unsecured loan forming part of the consideration further undermined the transaction. On the stated facts, the arrangement was regarded as preferential and undervalued, with indications of an attempt to defeat creditors, and the analysis also referred to wrongful trading. The challenge to the order failed, and the setting aside of the agreement together with return of the assets was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>