<?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>2024 (4) TMI 1393 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467508</link>
    <description>Expiry and non-renewal of a lease, coupled with a registration objection under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, left the appellant without any subsisting contractual or enforceable right to continue in possession of the premises during insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal treated the lease deed as incapable of supporting a continuing right in the circumstances and held that, once no legal right survived, the direction to vacate did not suffer from legal error. Non-compliance with the earlier opportunity granted by the adjudicating authority further reinforced the conclusion that no protection against eviction could be claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2026 22:41:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1393 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467508</link>
      <description>Expiry and non-renewal of a lease, coupled with a registration objection under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, left the appellant without any subsisting contractual or enforceable right to continue in possession of the premises during insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal treated the lease deed as incapable of supporting a continuing right in the circumstances and held that, once no legal right survived, the direction to vacate did not suffer from legal error. Non-compliance with the earlier opportunity granted by the adjudicating authority further reinforced the conclusion that no protection against eviction could be claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>