<?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 (3) TMI 1143 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767757</link>
    <description>NCLAT held that NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain RP&#039;s application against GIDC&#039;s lease termination during moratorium period under Section 14 IBC. The lease termination order dated 07.04.2022 was passed during continuing moratorium and violated Section 14(1) IBC. NCLT could exercise jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC. Additionally, NCLAT found that Adjudicating Authority erred in remanding Resolution Plan to CoC without finding non-compliance with Section 30(2) IBC. The approved Resolution Plan could not be returned for reconsideration without recording specific violations of mandatory provisions. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:48:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=808840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1143 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767757</link>
      <description>NCLAT held that NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain RP&#039;s application against GIDC&#039;s lease termination during moratorium period under Section 14 IBC. The lease termination order dated 07.04.2022 was passed during continuing moratorium and violated Section 14(1) IBC. NCLT could exercise jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC. Additionally, NCLAT found that Adjudicating Authority erred in remanding Resolution Plan to CoC without finding non-compliance with Section 30(2) IBC. The approved Resolution Plan could not be returned for reconsideration without recording specific violations of mandatory provisions. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>