https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290213 A development arrangement described as a licence and joint development over MHADA land did not create ownership or transferable possessory rights in favour of the corporate debtor. The arrangement was treated as conferring only development rights and a personal licence, so the land could not be regarded as property in the corporate debtor's exclusive possession for section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The moratorium also did not prevent the owner from terminating the contract, because such termination was not a proceeding before a court, tribunal or authority. Section 238 did not override the owner's vested rights or transform third-party land into the debtor's asset. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290213 A development arrangement described as a licence and joint development over MHADA land did not create ownership or transferable possessory rights in favour of the corporate debtor. The arrangement was treated as conferring only development rights and a personal licence, so the land could not be regarded as property in the corporate debtor's exclusive possession for section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The moratorium also did not prevent the owner from terminating the contract, because such termination was not a proceeding before a court, tribunal or authority. Section 238 did not override the owner's vested rights or transform third-party land into the debtor's asset. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290213