Development rights in immovable property are insolvency assets and may be protected under the resolution process.

Development rights, exclusive possession, and related interests created in favour of a corporate debtor in immovable property can fall within the wide meaning of "property" and "asset" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so they must be reflected in the information memorandum and protected by the resolution professional under Sections 18 and 25. The insolvency fora were also entitled to preserve the corporate debtor's possession and balance it against a third party's limited permissive occupation, because the exclusion in the Explanation to Section 18 did not limit the broader duties under Section 25. The directions were within jurisdiction, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the development rights and other interests created in favour of the corporate debtor in the immovable property constituted assets liable to be included in the information memorandum and brought under the custody and control of the resolution professional. (ii) Whether the NCLT and NCLAT exceeded their jurisdiction under the insolvency framework by protecting the possession of the corporate debtor and issuing directions to preserve the property against interference.

Issue (i): Whether the development rights and other interests created in favour of the corporate debtor in the immovable property constituted assets liable to be included in the information memorandum and brought under the custody and control of the resolution professional.

Analysis: The corporate debtor had financed the purchase of the property, acquired shareholding in the owner company, and entered into a development agreement followed by memoranda recording possession. These documents created a bundle of rights and interests in the property, including exclusive development rights and possession, which fell within the wide inclusive meaning of property under Section 3(27) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The expression asset in Sections 18 and 25 was treated as encompassing property of this kind. The development rights therefore had to be reflected in the information memorandum and protected by the resolution professional.

Conclusion: Yes. The development rights and related interests were assets of the corporate debtor and were liable to be included and protected.

Issue (ii): Whether the NCLT and NCLAT exceeded their jurisdiction under the insolvency framework by protecting the possession of the corporate debtor and issuing directions to preserve the property against interference.

Analysis: The exclusion in the Explanation to Section 18 was confined to that section and did not curtail the wider duties under Section 25. The authorities did not direct eviction of a third-party licensee beyond the licensed area, but balanced the rights by protecting the corporate debtor's possession and the licensee's limited permissive use. The cited precedents on mining leases, power purchase agreements, and contractual termination did not govern a case involving development rights in immovable property. The directions were therefore within the insolvency jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No. The NCLT and NCLAT did not act without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the corporate debtor's development-related interests in the property were part of its assets, and the insolvency fora were justified in preserving those interests while protecting the limited licensed occupation.

Ratio Decidendi: Development rights and possession-based interests created in favour of a corporate debtor in immovable property can constitute assets under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and may be protected by the resolution professional under Sections 18 and 25, while the insolvency fora may safeguard such interests without trenching upon the limited rights of a third-party licensee.

---