<?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 1087 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785331</link>
    <description>Resolution plan approval concerned inclusion of third-party land and setting aside a purportedly fraudulent lease; respondents obtained CoC-backed plan approval which treated guarantor land as CD assets, and earlier adjudicating authority orders setting aside the lease were treated as final and binding. Appellant contended that third-party property cannot be included and that cancellation of lease falls outside the adjudicating authoritys jurisdiction, but those contentions were rejected as the impugned directions were consequential to prior final orders and no illegality was found, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1087 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785331</link>
      <description>Resolution plan approval concerned inclusion of third-party land and setting aside a purportedly fraudulent lease; respondents obtained CoC-backed plan approval which treated guarantor land as CD assets, and earlier adjudicating authority orders setting aside the lease were treated as final and binding. Appellant contended that third-party property cannot be included and that cancellation of lease falls outside the adjudicating authoritys jurisdiction, but those contentions were rejected as the impugned directions were consequential to prior final orders and no illegality was found, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>