<?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 1442 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790373</link>
    <description>Separate contractual entitlements under a lease deed were recognised for the Corporate Debtor and the other lessor, and the lessee&#039;s payment break-up showed that the outstanding rent had been adjusted and remitted in line with those shares. The record also showed that an earlier order directing payment of the rent for the relevant period had attained finality, leaving no basis to dispute the allocation. On that material, the amount paid to the Corporate Debtor was treated as including the other party&#039;s contractual share, so release of that share was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1442 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790373</link>
      <description>Separate contractual entitlements under a lease deed were recognised for the Corporate Debtor and the other lessor, and the lessee&#039;s payment break-up showed that the outstanding rent had been adjusted and remitted in line with those shares. The record also showed that an earlier order directing payment of the rent for the relevant period had attained finality, leaving no basis to dispute the allocation. On that material, the amount paid to the Corporate Debtor was treated as including the other party&#039;s contractual share, so release of that share was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>