<?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 (4) TMI 159 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789090</link>
    <description>An unregistered assignment deed, though not admissible to prove the substantive transaction under the Registration Act, 1908, may still be considered for the limited collateral purpose of substituting the assignee in proceedings. The substitution order was procedural and did not determine the deed&#039;s validity or enforceability on merits. The assignee was therefore allowed to come on record and contest the company petition, while objections to the assignment deed&#039;s legal effect remained open for decision before the adjudicating authority at final adjudication. The impugned order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 159 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789090</link>
      <description>An unregistered assignment deed, though not admissible to prove the substantive transaction under the Registration Act, 1908, may still be considered for the limited collateral purpose of substituting the assignee in proceedings. The substitution order was procedural and did not determine the deed&#039;s validity or enforceability on merits. The assignee was therefore allowed to come on record and contest the company petition, while objections to the assignment deed&#039;s legal effect remained open for decision before the adjudicating authority at final adjudication. The impugned order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>