https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392890 Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stayed recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor, and the phrase "occupied by" was construed to mean actual physical occupation or actual user, not merely juridical or constructive possession. On the joint development arrangement, the corporate debtor's licence to enter, demolish, construct, and carry out project works amounted to occupation, so the moratorium applied and the owner could not recover possession during the insolvency resolution process. The Court also held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act could not override the moratorium in view of Section 238 of the Code. The impugned order was set aside and the application for protection against takeover of possession was restored for decision. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2022 17:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392890 Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stayed recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor, and the phrase "occupied by" was construed to mean actual physical occupation or actual user, not merely juridical or constructive possession. On the joint development arrangement, the corporate debtor's licence to enter, demolish, construct, and carry out project works amounted to occupation, so the moratorium applied and the owner could not recover possession during the insolvency resolution process. The Court also held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act could not override the moratorium in view of Section 238 of the Code. The impugned order was set aside and the application for protection against takeover of possession was restored for decision. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392890