In Brief
A corporate debtor entered a joint development agreement with MHADA to redevelop land and construct housing. When the debtor defaulted on a loan, insolvency proceedings commenced with a moratorium. MHADA attempted to terminate the agreement and recover possession. The key issue was whether Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency Code—protecting property 'occupied by' a corporate debtor—covered the developer's occupation. The Supreme Court held that 'occupied' means actual physical possession and use, distinct from legal interests. The developer's license to enter, demolish, and construct constituted occupation within the moratorium's protection. The Court distinguished between 'occupation' (actual physical use) and 'possession' (which can be constructive), ruling that the moratorium applied and the Insolvency Code prevailed over sectoral statutes like MHADA Act.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.