https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388434 During the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, premises in the corporate debtor's occupation were protected from eviction or disturbance even though the premises were not owned by it and were used for business operations. The commentary states that section 14(1)(d) barred interference with such possession so the corporate debtor could continue as a going concern. It also notes that disputes over title or proprietary rights were not to be decided in IBC proceedings, and that any liquidation or sale consequences had to follow the insolvency framework. On that basis, the directions to hand over possession of one wing and to restrain eviction from another wing were upheld. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:20:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388434 During the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, premises in the corporate debtor's occupation were protected from eviction or disturbance even though the premises were not owned by it and were used for business operations. The commentary states that section 14(1)(d) barred interference with such possession so the corporate debtor could continue as a going concern. It also notes that disputes over title or proprietary rights were not to be decided in IBC proceedings, and that any liquidation or sale consequences had to follow the insolvency framework. On that basis, the directions to hand over possession of one wing and to restrain eviction from another wing were upheld. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388434