Moratorium does not protect mere development rights in third-party land where exclusive possession is absent.

A development arrangement described as a licence and joint development over MHADA land did not create ownership or transferable possessory rights in favour of the corporate debtor. The arrangement was treated as conferring only development rights and a personal licence, so the land could not be regarded as property in the corporate debtor's exclusive possession for section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The moratorium also did not prevent the owner from terminating the contract, because such termination was not a proceeding before a court, tribunal or authority. Section 238 did not override the owner's vested rights or transform third-party land into the debtor's asset.

---

---

Issues: Whether the land belonging to MHADA, which was subjected to a development arrangement described as a licence and joint development, could be treated as property occupied by the corporate debtor so as to attract section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the termination of that arrangement was hit by moratorium under the Code.

Analysis: The arrangement conferred only a development right and a personal licence, not ownership or any transferable possessory interest in the land. The record showed that the property remained public land, that the corporate debtor had not obtained exclusive possession, and that the agreement itself contemplated joint development rather than exclusive control. The Court held that mere development rights do not become an interest incidental to property for the purpose of section 14(1)(d), and that a person without lawful exclusive possession cannot invoke moratorium to prevent recovery of the owner's property. It further held that section 14(1)(a) does not cover a contractual termination by the owner, since such termination is not a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or authority. The Court also held that section 238 does not extinguish the owner's vested rights or convert third-party property into an asset of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The MHADA land was not shown to be property in the exclusive possession of the corporate debtor, the moratorium did not bar termination of the development arrangement, and the application seeking protection of possession failed.

---