<?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 (10) TMI 624 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779828</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the order directing the appellant to hand over title deeds. The tribunal found the appellant had no sustainable right: the registered Agreement for Sale did not culminate in a sale deed or specific-performance suit, and the subsequent Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (MoDT) was unregistered and thus inadmissible to create an equitable mortgage under s.17 read with the State amendment and s.49 of the Registration Act. The appellant also failed to file a claim in liquidation despite notice. Consequently retention of the documents by the appellant was unjustified and the impugned directions required no interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 624 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779828</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the order directing the appellant to hand over title deeds. The tribunal found the appellant had no sustainable right: the registered Agreement for Sale did not culminate in a sale deed or specific-performance suit, and the subsequent Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (MoDT) was unregistered and thus inadmissible to create an equitable mortgage under s.17 read with the State amendment and s.49 of the Registration Act. The appellant also failed to file a claim in liquidation despite notice. Consequently retention of the documents by the appellant was unjustified and the impugned directions required no interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>