<?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>Registered sub-lease security interest required revised plan distribution, while lender claims over allotted units were limited to unsold inventory.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101441</link>
    <description>A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan&#039;s distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender&#039;s assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Registered sub-lease security interest required revised plan distribution, while lender claims over allotted units were limited to unsold inventory.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101441</link>
      <description>A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan&#039;s distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender&#039;s assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>