<?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 (2) TMI 633 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766086</link>
    <description>A going concern sale of a corporate debtor in liquidation was upheld where the amended liquidation regulation was already in force before the auction and the sale was completed in the first attempt; the earlier 90-day requirement under the unamended provision could not be used to invalidate the transaction. The purchaser was also held entitled to a clean slate: past liabilities not preserved in the sale framework could not be fastened on the successful bidder, and reliefs and concessions could not be refused on that basis. The adverse order dismissing the application and making adverse observations was set aside, and the connected appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 633 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766086</link>
      <description>A going concern sale of a corporate debtor in liquidation was upheld where the amended liquidation regulation was already in force before the auction and the sale was completed in the first attempt; the earlier 90-day requirement under the unamended provision could not be used to invalidate the transaction. The purchaser was also held entitled to a clean slate: past liabilities not preserved in the sale framework could not be fastened on the successful bidder, and reliefs and concessions could not be refused on that basis. The adverse order dismissing the application and making adverse observations was set aside, and the connected appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>