Insolvency moratorium limits coercive relief against tenants; resolution professionals must use the prescribed administrative remedy for practical difficulties.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates as a moratorium protecting the corporate debtor's property in occupation or possession, but it does not give a resolution professional a standalone basis to seek coercive directions against tenants or occupants. Where the resolution professional faces practical difficulty in carrying out duties under section 25, the proper course is to seek assistance from the District Administration under regulation 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution) Regulations, 2016. An application filed without committee of creditors approval for broader coercive relief against tenants was therefore not maintainable, though recovery of rent was not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution professional could invoke section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to seek directions against the tenants and occupants. (ii) Whether, in the absence of approval of the committee of creditors, the application for such relief was maintainable and what remedy was available to the resolution professional for discharge of his functions.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution professional could invoke section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to seek directions against the tenants and occupants.

Analysis: Section 14 operates as a moratorium and protects property of the corporate debtor from recovery by an owner or lessor where such property is in occupation or possession of the corporate debtor. The provision does not confer a general right on the resolution professional to invoke it for obtaining directions against tenants or occupants in the manner sought in the application.

Conclusion: The resolution professional could not invoke section 14(1)(d) for the relief claimed against the tenants.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of approval of the committee of creditors, the application for such relief was maintainable and what remedy was available to the resolution professional for discharge of his functions.

Analysis: The application had been filed without approval of the committee of creditors. If the resolution professional faces difficulty in discharging duties under section 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appropriate course is to approach the District Administration under regulation 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution) Regulations, 2016. The relief of recovery of rent was not denied, but the broader application for coercive directions against the tenants was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The application for relief against the tenants was dismissed, while the resolution professional was left free to recover rent and to approach the District Administration if required.

Final Conclusion: The requested coercive relief against the tenants was rejected, and the resolution professional was directed to pursue the remedy available under the insolvency framework for any practical difficulty in performing his functions.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a moratorium provision and cannot be used by the resolution professional as a standalone basis for the relief sought against tenants or occupants; where operational difficulty arises, the statutory remedy lies under section 25 and the regulations.

---