https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783781 A writ petition under Art. 226 challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held not maintainable because the petitioner invoked the HC's equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands by wilful misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, including selectively quoting an insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; the petition was dismissed on this ground. On merits, the HC held the case involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely change in shareholding), rendering relied precedents inapplicable; the demand for transfer fee could therefore be raised. The "clean slate" principle under s.31 IBC did not bar the demand because the approved resolution plan did not settle it and insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783781 A writ petition under Art. 226 challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held not maintainable because the petitioner invoked the HC's equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands by wilful misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, including selectively quoting an insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; the petition was dismissed on this ground. On merits, the HC held the case involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely change in shareholding), rendering relied precedents inapplicable; the demand for transfer fee could therefore be raised. The "clean slate" principle under s.31 IBC did not bar the demand because the approved resolution plan did not settle it and insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783781