TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could stall acquisition and rehabilitation proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. (ii) Whether the resolution professional could claim a preferential right to preserve the corporate debtor's redevelopment opportunity and prevent the slum rehabilitation process from moving forward.
Issue (i): Whether the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could stall acquisition and rehabilitation proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Analysis: The moratorium protects the corporate debtor's assets, but it does not operate to defeat a welfare statute enacted for the benefit of slum dwellers. The statutory scheme under the Slum Act, including the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area and acquisition-related steps, is directed to securing rehabilitation, transit arrangements, and redevelopment for eligible occupants. Those rights cannot be suspended merely because the corporate debtor is in a corporate insolvency resolution process. A contrary view would allow a defaulting developer to use insolvency proceedings to continue denying rehabilitation benefits and transit rent indefinitely.
Conclusion: The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not prevent the slum rehabilitation and acquisition proceedings from continuing.
Issue (ii): Whether the resolution professional could claim a preferential right to preserve the corporate debtor's redevelopment opportunity and prevent the slum rehabilitation process from moving forward.
Analysis: The developer had already obtained the development right through the letter of intent and had failed to perform its obligations under the slum rehabilitation regime. The claim of a renewed or preferential right to self-develop overlooked that the right had already been availed of and that the project could not be insulated from consequences of default by invoking insolvency law. The petition sought only to preserve the corporate debtor's commercial upside without addressing the corresponding obligations owed to slum dwellers.
Conclusion: No preferential right to self-redevelop survived, and the request to restrain the rehabilitation process was untenable.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition and rehabilitation process failed, and the petition was rejected as lacking merit.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not override or suspend a welfare statute governing slum rehabilitation, and insolvency protection cannot be used to preserve a defaulting developer's commercial advantage at the expense of the statutory rights of slum dwellers.
TaxTMI 
