<?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>Operational debt claim under leave-and-licence agreement: double licence fee, amenities disputes, and termination impact; Section 9 order remanded</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95795</link>
    <description>Whether an operational creditor&#039;s Section 9 application satisfied the statutory monetary threshold required determination of the actual operational debt, including disputes on charging of double licence fee and amenities and the effect of termination of the leave and licence and amenities agreements after expiry of the lock-in period. The adjudicating authority erred by not examining these issues in sufficient depth and by failing to compute the amount due to ascertain if the threshold was crossed, rendering the order non-speaking on a material jurisdictional precondition. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by a speaking order. - NCLAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:20:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:20:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Operational debt claim under leave-and-licence agreement: double licence fee, amenities disputes, and termination impact; Section 9 order remanded</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95795</link>
      <description>Whether an operational creditor&#039;s Section 9 application satisfied the statutory monetary threshold required determination of the actual operational debt, including disputes on charging of double licence fee and amenities and the effect of termination of the leave and licence and amenities agreements after expiry of the lock-in period. The adjudicating authority erred by not examining these issues in sufficient depth and by failing to compute the amount due to ascertain if the threshold was crossed, rendering the order non-speaking on a material jurisdictional precondition. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by a speaking order. - NCLAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:20:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>