<?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>2026 (1) TMI 160 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784404</link>
    <description>Where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation, post-sale true-up charges under the electricity tariff regime may be recovered from the successful auction purchaser because the purchaser takes ownership after the sale certificate date and the tariff framework permits recovery for the post-sale consumer connection. The expression &quot;as per law&quot; in the regulatory order did not exempt the purchaser from such liability. A separate contempt-linked appeal was held to be unsustainable because the deduction and refund dispute had already been resolved, leaving no surviving relief; any contempt complaint, if maintainable, lay before the Adjudicating Authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 160 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784404</link>
      <description>Where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation, post-sale true-up charges under the electricity tariff regime may be recovered from the successful auction purchaser because the purchaser takes ownership after the sale certificate date and the tariff framework permits recovery for the post-sale consumer connection. The expression &quot;as per law&quot; in the regulatory order did not exempt the purchaser from such liability. A separate contempt-linked appeal was held to be unsustainable because the deduction and refund dispute had already been resolved, leaving no surviving relief; any contempt complaint, if maintainable, lay before the Adjudicating Authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>