https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775142 NCLAT ruled that the appellant company could not claim rights under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act as their Agreement to Sell was unregistered, violating Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908. The tribunal upheld the direction to vacate premises since the appellant had no property rights, with all assets forming part of liquidation estate. However, NCLAT partially allowed the appeal by directing the liquidator to admit the appellant's Rs. 2.51 crore claim in appropriate category for distribution per law, as rejection based solely on filing delay was improper. The tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's direction to pay Rs. 2.01 crores directly to appellant, ruling such payment outside IBC distribution framework was unsustainable, and ordered refund with earned interest within 30 days. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:43:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775142 NCLAT ruled that the appellant company could not claim rights under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act as their Agreement to Sell was unregistered, violating Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908. The tribunal upheld the direction to vacate premises since the appellant had no property rights, with all assets forming part of liquidation estate. However, NCLAT partially allowed the appeal by directing the liquidator to admit the appellant's Rs. 2.51 crore claim in appropriate category for distribution per law, as rejection based solely on filing delay was improper. The tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's direction to pay Rs. 2.01 crores directly to appellant, ruling such payment outside IBC distribution framework was unsustainable, and ordered refund with earned interest within 30 days. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775142