In Brief
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A property developer held a license under a Joint Development Agreement with MHADA to enter and occupy land for redevelopment. When the developer became insolvent, MHADA sought to terminate the agreement and recover possession. The Court held that Section 14(1)(d)'s moratorium protects actual physical occupation of property by a corporate debtor, not merely legal rights or interests. The word "occupied" means actual physical presence and use, distinguished from legal possession. The moratorium therefore prevented MHADA from recovering possession during the insolvency resolution process, and the Insolvency Code's provisions prevail over conflicting provisions in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.