https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784078 The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide a pending possession dispute after approval of the resolution plan, because the proceeding concerned an asset of the corporate debtor and formed part of the insolvency process. It also held that section 60(5) permitted examination of the MoU and the claimed right to continue occupation. The appellant could not invoke section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because the MoU was unregistered and not shown to be a valid contract for sale, so no protected part-performance right arose. Vacate-and-handover directions and usage charges were therefore upheld as consequences of unauthorised occupation. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784078 The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide a pending possession dispute after approval of the resolution plan, because the proceeding concerned an asset of the corporate debtor and formed part of the insolvency process. It also held that section 60(5) permitted examination of the MoU and the claimed right to continue occupation. The appellant could not invoke section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because the MoU was unregistered and not shown to be a valid contract for sale, so no protected part-performance right arose. Vacate-and-handover directions and usage charges were therefore upheld as consequences of unauthorised occupation. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784078