<?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 613 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789544</link>
    <description>A statutory sanction of a building map issued by the Lucknow Development Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 could not be treated as an insolvency dispute merely because it related to a corporate resolution plan. The resolution plan only enabled the successful resolution applicant to seek necessary approvals, while the sanction order was passed independently by the statutory authority after plan approval. As the challenge concerned an exercise of independent statutory power, the NCLT had no jurisdiction to set aside the sanction order, and the application was not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority. The proper remedy lay under the planning law, including the revisional remedy before the State Government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 613 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789544</link>
      <description>A statutory sanction of a building map issued by the Lucknow Development Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 could not be treated as an insolvency dispute merely because it related to a corporate resolution plan. The resolution plan only enabled the successful resolution applicant to seek necessary approvals, while the sanction order was passed independently by the statutory authority after plan approval. As the challenge concerned an exercise of independent statutory power, the NCLT had no jurisdiction to set aside the sanction order, and the application was not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority. The proper remedy lay under the planning law, including the revisional remedy before the State Government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>