https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359805 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. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 08:52:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359805 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. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359805