https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92339 NCLAT affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:58 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92339 NCLAT affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected. Highlights IBC Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92339