https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95394 The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95394 The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT Highlights IBC Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95394