<?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 (8) TMI 1712 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468073</link>
    <description>Where attachment of a corporate debtor&#039;s property under the MPID Act remained unresolved before the Special Court, the appellate tribunal declined to grant immediate lifting of attachment and left the parties to seek determination before that competent forum. It noted that one request had already been treated as premature because the relevant notification had not been published for the concerned property, while the status of the remaining properties still required adjudication under the Act. Because the attachment issue was undecided, the deposited sale consideration was also not released and the status quo was preserved pending the Special Court&#039;s final decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1712 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468073</link>
      <description>Where attachment of a corporate debtor&#039;s property under the MPID Act remained unresolved before the Special Court, the appellate tribunal declined to grant immediate lifting of attachment and left the parties to seek determination before that competent forum. It noted that one request had already been treated as premature because the relevant notification had not been published for the concerned property, while the status of the remaining properties still required adjudication under the Act. Because the attachment issue was undecided, the deposited sale consideration was also not released and the status quo was preserved pending the Special Court&#039;s final decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>