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
Join Channel
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 barred termination of the lease deed and eviction proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 against property in possession of the corporate debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process. (ii) Whether the Explanation to Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permitted termination and recovery on the ground of breach of lease conditions or non-payment of dues, and whether Section 238 gave the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overriding effect over the Public Premises Act.
Issue (i): Whether the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred termination of the lease deed and eviction proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 against property in possession of the corporate debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Analysis: Section 14(1)(d) prohibits recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where the property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. The Court treated the leasehold interest as part of the corporate debtor's property within the inclusive meaning of property under Section 3(27). The moratorium is intended to preserve the assets of the corporate debtor, maintain status quo, and keep it as a going concern during the resolution process. On that basis, both the re-entry under the lease and the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act could not be undertaken during the moratorium period.
Conclusion: The moratorium barred both the termination of the lease and the eviction proceedings, and the impugned actions were impermissible during CIRP.
Issue (ii): Whether the Explanation to Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permitted termination and recovery on the ground of breach of lease conditions or non-payment of dues, and whether Section 238 gave the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overriding effect over the Public Premises Act.
Analysis: The Explanation to Section 14(1) was treated as clarificatory and inserted to prevent suspension or termination of governmental grants on the ground of insolvency, subject to current dues, and not as an enabling provision to defeat the moratorium. The Court held that reading the Explanation as permitting lease termination during CIRP would render Section 14 nugatory. It further held that Section 238 gives the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overriding effect over any inconsistent law, including the Public Premises Act, and that the resolution professional's duties under Section 25 and the binding nature of the approved resolution plan under Section 31 support protection of the corporate debtor's assets.
Conclusion: The Explanation did not authorise termination or eviction during CIRP, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevailed over the Public Premises Act.
Final Conclusion: The lease termination and eviction orders were held unsustainable because the corporate debtor's possession and leasehold rights were protected during moratorium, and the insolvency framework prevailed over the contrary recovery mechanism.
Ratio Decidendi: During the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, property in the possession of the corporate debtor cannot be recovered by the lessor or owner, and the Explanation to Section 14(1) is only clarificatory and cannot be used to justify termination or eviction in derogation of the moratorium; by virtue of Section 238, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent proceedings under other laws.
TaxTMI 
