https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769497 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a liquidator's disclaimer of a leave and license agreement as onerous property under Regulation 10 of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016. The appellant argued there was divergence between Technical and Judicial Members' opinions and that Regulation 10 was ultra vires to IBC. NCLAT held both members agreed the agreement was onerous, noting the rent increased from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2.25 lakhs monthly and the transaction lacked bona fides. The tribunal ruled Regulation 10 operates within IBC's framework under Section 35(1)(o), empowering liquidators to disclaim onerous contracts, and is not ultra vires. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769497 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a liquidator's disclaimer of a leave and license agreement as onerous property under Regulation 10 of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016. The appellant argued there was divergence between Technical and Judicial Members' opinions and that Regulation 10 was ultra vires to IBC. NCLAT held both members agreed the agreement was onerous, noting the rent increased from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2.25 lakhs monthly and the transaction lacked bona fides. The tribunal ruled Regulation 10 operates within IBC's framework under Section 35(1)(o), empowering liquidators to disclaim onerous contracts, and is not ultra vires. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769497