<?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 (6) TMI 460 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772347</link>
    <description>Deposit of title deeds creates a mortgage only where the surrounding documents and conduct clearly show an intention to create security; on the facts, that intent was absent, so secured creditor status was rejected while the financial creditor status remained undisturbed. An agreed 18% interest rate on the admitted financial claim was upheld because the underlying transaction was treated as a financial debt and the repayment understanding supported interest. Adverse restriction of one creditor&#039;s claim and adverse comments on another&#039;s claim were set aside because they were made without hearing the affected parties, violating natural justice. The replacement of the resolution professional and the forensic audit direction were also set aside for lack of sufficient basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:32:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 460 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772347</link>
      <description>Deposit of title deeds creates a mortgage only where the surrounding documents and conduct clearly show an intention to create security; on the facts, that intent was absent, so secured creditor status was rejected while the financial creditor status remained undisturbed. An agreed 18% interest rate on the admitted financial claim was upheld because the underlying transaction was treated as a financial debt and the repayment understanding supported interest. Adverse restriction of one creditor&#039;s claim and adverse comments on another&#039;s claim were set aside because they were made without hearing the affected parties, violating natural justice. The replacement of the resolution professional and the forensic audit direction were also set aside for lack of sufficient basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>