<?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 (9) TMI 71 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777582</link>
    <description>In an insolvency resolution plan involving a development arrangement, the plan clauses were read consistently with the memorandum of understanding, joint development agreement and prior recognition of development rights, so they did not divest the landowner&#039;s ownership or create any independent land right in the resolution applicant. The approved plan also did not transfer title in the 10.19 acres of land, but operated only to implement the existing development structure. The repayment schedule contained defined timelines and no exit route for the successful resolution applicant, so the plan was not treated as contingent or incapable of approval. On the record, audited financial statements and the resolution professional&#039;s affidavit supported satisfaction of the eligibility criteria.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=847375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 71 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777582</link>
      <description>In an insolvency resolution plan involving a development arrangement, the plan clauses were read consistently with the memorandum of understanding, joint development agreement and prior recognition of development rights, so they did not divest the landowner&#039;s ownership or create any independent land right in the resolution applicant. The approved plan also did not transfer title in the 10.19 acres of land, but operated only to implement the existing development structure. The repayment schedule contained defined timelines and no exit route for the successful resolution applicant, so the plan was not treated as contingent or incapable of approval. On the record, audited financial statements and the resolution professional&#039;s affidavit supported satisfaction of the eligibility criteria.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>