Partial preview of the text
Download report on the legal case laws of india and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!
SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021 Page | Sunday, April 04, 2021 Printed For: Mr. Atul Batra SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases 8-Judge Bench 2020 Feb, 19 208 SUPREME COURT CASES (2020) 13 SCC (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 208 (BEFORE ROIIINTON FALI NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.) RAJENDRA K. BHUTTA . Appellant; Versus MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND ARTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER .. Respondents. Civil Appeal No. 12248 of 2018", decided on February 19, 2020 A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 14(1)(d) and 8. 14(1)(b) Recovery of property by ownerflessor where such property is “occupied by” corporate debtor — Impermissibility of, when a moratorium under IBC is declared — Use of the expression “property” in S. 14(1)(d) as opposed to the expression “asser’ used in S. 14(D)(b) — Relevance of — “Possession” and “occupation” of property — Distinguished between — Held, S. 14(1)(d) does not deal with any of the assets or legal right or beneficial interest in such assets of the corporate debtor but what is referred to therein is the “recovery of any property” — Further, the expression “occupied by” would mean or be synonymous with being in actual physical possession of or being actually used by, in contradistinction to the expression “possession” — This is because the expression “possession” would connote possession being either constructive or actual and which, in turn, would include legally being in possession, though factually not being in physical possession — Under a joint development agreement entered into between the developer. MHADA and Society. a licence was granted to the developer (corporate debtor) to enter upon the property, demolish the existing structures and to construct and erect new structures and allot tenements — Held. after such entry, the property would be “occupied by” the developer — Thus, recovery of the property “occupied by” the corporate debtor would lall within 8. 14(1)(d) — In the present case, order of NCLAT inter alia holding, that the land belonged lo the “Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)” and could not be treated to be the asset of the “corporate debtor” for application of provisions of S. 14(1)(d) IBC, sect aside — Interpretation of Statutes — Subsidiary Rules — Reddendo singula singulis — Different words different meanings/Same words same meanings/Same words: Same or different meaning — When two words of different import are used in a statute in two consecutive provisions, it would be difficul( to maintain that they are used in the same sense — Words and Phrases — “Property”, “asset” — “Occupied”, “possession” — Property Law — Possession (Paras 12 to 23) } Arising from the Judgment and Order in Rajendra K. Bhute vy. Mapa, 2018 SCC OnLine NC1.aT 850 [National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 119 of 2018, dt. 14-12-2018] 
