Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 370 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyTaking possession of the demise premises in view of Section 14(1)(d) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- Section 14(1)(d) provides that the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor is prohibited. In support of this submission, Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of RAJENDRA K. BHUTTA VERSUS MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [2020 (3) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT], in which the question was about the correct interpretation of Section 14(1)(d) of the Code. In the case of Rajendra K. Bhutta, the application under Section 7 was admitted on 24.07.2017 and notice of termination was issued on 12.01.2018. The Appellant wherein filed an application before the NCLT to restrain MHADA from taking over possession till completion of the CIRP, on the ground that recovery of possession shall be in derogation of the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Code but the said application was dismissed. Further, NCLAT also dismissed the appeal holding that it cannot be treated to be the asset of the Corporate Debtor for the application of provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision which is in fact not applicable to the facts of this case because in the reported case the termination notice was issued by MHADA after the CIRP whereas in the present case the lease deed was terminated way back on 01.12.2015, constructive possession was taken, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP and moratorium was imposed on 26.04.2019. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that the Corporate Debtor had lost possessory rights more than three years prior to the initiation of the CIRP. The property of third party, occupied by the Corporate Debtor had been expressly excluded from the purview of term asset. Since the demised premises ceased to be the property of the Corporate Debtor much prior to the initiation of CIRP, therefore, it cannot be covered under Section 14 much less 14(1)(d) of the Code. Appeal dismissed.
|