<?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 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767807</link>
    <description>Approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not extinguish a slum rehabilitation authority&#039;s independent statutory powers under the Maharashtra Slum Act, because action under Section 13(2) is regulatory and remedial rather than debt recovery. The obligation to pay transit rent to slum dwellers is statutory in character, arising from the approved rehabilitation scheme and its regulatory conditions. On the facts, prolonged non-payment of transit rent and stalled implementation justified invocation of Section 13(2) and termination of the developer&#039;s appointment, while the appellate process was not fatally unfair. The challenge to removal substantially failed, though a final limited opportunity to submit a workable proposal was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767807</link>
      <description>Approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not extinguish a slum rehabilitation authority&#039;s independent statutory powers under the Maharashtra Slum Act, because action under Section 13(2) is regulatory and remedial rather than debt recovery. The obligation to pay transit rent to slum dwellers is statutory in character, arising from the approved rehabilitation scheme and its regulatory conditions. On the facts, prolonged non-payment of transit rent and stalled implementation justified invocation of Section 13(2) and termination of the developer&#039;s appointment, while the appellate process was not fatally unfair. The challenge to removal substantially failed, though a final limited opportunity to submit a workable proposal was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>