<?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 (10) TMI 455 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800512</link>
    <description>Unilateral revocation of a joint development agreement and power of attorney did not, at the interim stage, establish grounds to exclude the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process. The development rights prima facie appeared irrevocable and non-determinable, while the contractual construction period had not expired. The asserted termination and conditional no-objection communication remained disputed, and existing mortgage and potential third-party rights could not be conclusively excluded. The landowner was permitted to intervene; exclusion of the land was declined at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:30:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=928356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 455 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800512</link>
      <description>Unilateral revocation of a joint development agreement and power of attorney did not, at the interim stage, establish grounds to exclude the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process. The development rights prima facie appeared irrevocable and non-determinable, while the contractual construction period had not expired. The asserted termination and conditional no-objection communication remained disputed, and existing mortgage and potential third-party rights could not be conclusively excluded. The landowner was permitted to intervene; exclusion of the land was declined at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>