Joint development licence and lawful possession under insolvency moratorium do not create protected property rights

A bare licence and development right under a joint development arrangement did not transfer ownership, leasehold, or any possessory interest in MHADA land to the corporate debtor, so section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not attracted. The Court treated possession under that provision as lawful possession and held that the corporate debtor had not shown exclusive possession of the entire land or any protected possessory right in substance. The document also frames the further question whether the moratorium under section 14 barred termination of the development agreement and whether section 238 displaced MHADA's contractual and statutory rights, but the supplied text cuts off before that analysis is completed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the land belonging to MHADA could be treated as property occupied or in possession of the corporate debtor so as to attract section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether the moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred MHADA from terminating the development agreement and whether section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 displaced MHADA's contractual and statutory rights.

Issue (i): Whether the land belonging to MHADA could be treated as property occupied or in possession of the corporate debtor so as to attract section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The agreement conferred only a licence and development right for joint development and did not transfer ownership or any leasehold or possessory interest in the land to the corporate debtor. The Court treated possession under section 14(1)(d) as lawful possession and held that a bare licence does not amount to an interest in property or exclusive possession. It further held that, on the facts, the corporate debtor failed to show exclusive possession of the entire land and could not convert a joint development arrangement into a protected possessory right under the Code.

Conclusion: The land did not fall within section 14(1)(d) as property in the possession of the corporate debtor.

Issue (ii): Whether the moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred MHADA from terminating the development agreement and whether section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 displaced MHADA's contractual and statutory rights.

Analysis: The Court held that the expression

---