https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794220 A corporate debtor in CIRP cannot question a landlord's ownership where the lease had expired long ago and the eviction decree had already attained finality, including before the Supreme Court; the debtor's continued occupation did not reopen title issues. An interim status quo order in separate land reforms proceedings between the landlord and the State did not enlarge the debtor's rights or justify possession after expiry of the lease and eviction. With no subsisting leasehold or other enforceable interest, the debtor remained in unauthorised possession, so the property could not be treated as its asset or included in the information memorandum or CIRP. The exclusion request was allowed and later steps concerning the property were ineffective. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794220 A corporate debtor in CIRP cannot question a landlord's ownership where the lease had expired long ago and the eviction decree had already attained finality, including before the Supreme Court; the debtor's continued occupation did not reopen title issues. An interim status quo order in separate land reforms proceedings between the landlord and the State did not enlarge the debtor's rights or justify possession after expiry of the lease and eviction. With no subsisting leasehold or other enforceable interest, the debtor remained in unauthorised possession, so the property could not be treated as its asset or included in the information memorandum or CIRP. The exclusion request was allowed and later steps concerning the property were ineffective. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794220