<?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 539 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772426</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal concerning possession of &#039;MB International&#039; hotel. The appellant sought to continue possession beyond the six-year term of a Conducting Agreement dated 03.07.2017, which expired on 07.08.2023. The NCLAT held that the moratorium under Section 14 following commencement of CIRP in 2022 did not extend the agreement term or create entitlement to continued possession. The appellant&#039;s expectation of extension under clause 28 was misplaced, and having no lawful right to possession post-expiry, eviction was warranted. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s reasoning was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 539 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772426</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal concerning possession of &#039;MB International&#039; hotel. The appellant sought to continue possession beyond the six-year term of a Conducting Agreement dated 03.07.2017, which expired on 07.08.2023. The NCLAT held that the moratorium under Section 14 following commencement of CIRP in 2022 did not extend the agreement term or create entitlement to continued possession. The appellant&#039;s expectation of extension under clause 28 was misplaced, and having no lawful right to possession post-expiry, eviction was warranted. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s reasoning was upheld.</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=772426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>