<?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>2025 (1) TMI 353 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764291</link>
    <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal seeking exclusion of a 13,000 sq. ft. Wockhardt Cephalosporin Facility from the corporate debtor&#039;s liquidation estate. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor acquired leasehold rights over the entire 64,925 sq. mtrs. property through an assignment agreement. Since no valid consent was obtained from MIDC for sub-letting to the appellant, and the sub-letting agreement was unregistered, the facility remained part of the liquidation estate. The tribunal found the adjudicating authority provided adequate reasons for its decision, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim of entitlement to the disputed area.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:18:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 353 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764291</link>
      <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal seeking exclusion of a 13,000 sq. ft. Wockhardt Cephalosporin Facility from the corporate debtor&#039;s liquidation estate. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor acquired leasehold rights over the entire 64,925 sq. mtrs. property through an assignment agreement. Since no valid consent was obtained from MIDC for sub-letting to the appellant, and the sub-letting agreement was unregistered, the facility remained part of the liquidation estate. The tribunal found the adjudicating authority provided adequate reasons for its decision, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim of entitlement to the disputed area.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>