https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782703 A lawfully terminated redevelopment agreement, ended before commencement of CIRP for persistent default by the developer, did not survive as an enforceable right of the corporate debtor. The Court held that the arrangement conferred no proprietary or possessory interest, so it was not an asset or property protected by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. It also held that constitutional review under Article 226 remained available to direct statutory authorities to process redevelopment approvals where no subsisting insolvency right existed. The challenge based on natural justice failed because notice was given, representation was available, and no concrete prejudice was shown. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782703 A lawfully terminated redevelopment agreement, ended before commencement of CIRP for persistent default by the developer, did not survive as an enforceable right of the corporate debtor. The Court held that the arrangement conferred no proprietary or possessory interest, so it was not an asset or property protected by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. It also held that constitutional review under Article 226 remained available to direct statutory authorities to process redevelopment approvals where no subsisting insolvency right existed. The challenge based on natural justice failed because notice was given, representation was available, and no concrete prejudice was shown. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782703