https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790212 Development rights in the project land were held not to have been validly terminated, because the 17.06.2009 letter was not shown to have been duly communicated or acted upon, and subsequent conduct was inconsistent with termination. Earlier Supreme Court proceedings and the recorded settlement treated the development arrangement as continuing, and the appellant's earlier regulatory statements also supported that position. The Adjudicating Authority was competent to examine those rights as an insolvency asset and to refuse exclusion of the project from CIRP. Any post-CIRP transfer of the same development rights to a third party was contrary to the moratorium and void in law. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790212 Development rights in the project land were held not to have been validly terminated, because the 17.06.2009 letter was not shown to have been duly communicated or acted upon, and subsequent conduct was inconsistent with termination. Earlier Supreme Court proceedings and the recorded settlement treated the development arrangement as continuing, and the appellant's earlier regulatory statements also supported that position. The Adjudicating Authority was competent to examine those rights as an insolvency asset and to refuse exclusion of the project from CIRP. Any post-CIRP transfer of the same development rights to a third party was contrary to the moratorium and void in law. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790212