https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757023 Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not prevent an expression of interest for appointing a new operation and maintenance contractor where the corporate debtor held only a contractual right to use, operate and maintain the facility. The agreements showed that ownership remained with the subsidiary and that the corporate debtor had no proprietary interest beyond limited operational rights. On that basis, mere permission to use the facility did not amount to occupation or possession for the purposes of the moratorium provision. The appointment process was not a recovery action against property occupied by the corporate debtor, and SARFAESI measures against the subsidiary did not make the process impermissible. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:32:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757023 Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not prevent an expression of interest for appointing a new operation and maintenance contractor where the corporate debtor held only a contractual right to use, operate and maintain the facility. The agreements showed that ownership remained with the subsidiary and that the corporate debtor had no proprietary interest beyond limited operational rights. On that basis, mere permission to use the facility did not amount to occupation or possession for the purposes of the moratorium provision. The appointment process was not a recovery action against property occupied by the corporate debtor, and SARFAESI measures against the subsidiary did not make the process impermissible. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757023