Moratorium on occupied property under insolvency law extends to actual use by the corporate debtor, barring recovery during resolution.

Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stayed recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor, and the phrase "occupied by" was construed to mean actual physical occupation or actual user, not merely juridical or constructive possession. On the joint development arrangement, the corporate debtor's licence to enter, demolish, construct, and carry out project works amounted to occupation, so the moratorium applied and the owner could not recover possession during the insolvency resolution process. The Court also held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act could not override the moratorium in view of Section 238 of the Code. The impugned order was set aside and the application for protection against takeover of possession was restored for decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of property under a joint development arrangement, where the corporate debtor was granted a licence to enter and develop the land, falls within the moratorium on recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor under Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 14(1)(d) is concerned with recovery of property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. The phrase "occupied by" was construed in contradistinction to "in the possession of", and the Court applied the principle of reddendo singula singulis to hold that the provision contemplates actual physical occupation or actual user, not merely juridical or constructive possession. On the terms of the joint development agreement and its modification, the corporate debtor was granted licence to enter the land, demolish existing structures, construct new structures, and perform the project works, and such entry and use amounted to occupation of the property. The contrary view that the land was not an asset of the corporate debtor was held to rest on an incorrect understanding of Section 14(1)(d), and the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 could not displace the moratorium in view of Section 238 of the Code.

Conclusion: The moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) applied and MHADA could not recover possession of the property during the insolvency resolution process.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the application seeking protection against takeover of possession was restored for decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the moratorium provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, "occupied by" denotes actual physical occupation or actual user of property by the corporate debtor, and recovery by the owner or lessor is stayed during moratorium notwithstanding a competing statutory regime.

---