# In the matter of Urshila Ajit Kerkar vs. Office of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Anr.

> HC judgment dated 2023-09-07. Citation: TCN-2023-HC-00036. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th August 2023, which granted prayers (a) to (f) in…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 7 Sept 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-HC-00036
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/urshila-ajit-kerkar-vs-office-of-the-court-receiver-high-court-bombay-anr-f06e4c57

## Summary

### Background

This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th August 2023, which granted prayers (a) to (f) in Court Receiver Report No.21 of 2022. The petitioner, a suspended director of Liz Traders and Agent Private Limited (reconstituted as Liz Investment Private Limited), argues that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) protects her rights as a suspended director of a corporate debtor. The Court Receiver filed a report seeking deposit of arrears of compensation/royalty. The Trial Court allowed the Court Receiver's report, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the moratorium under IBC should prevent the recovery of property from the corporate debtor.

## Facts

Urshila Ajit Kerkar, the petitioner, is a suspended director of Liz Traders and Agent Private Limited, which was later reconstituted as Liz Investment Private Limited. A Court Receiver was appointed, and a report was filed seeking deposit of arrears of compensation/royalty amounting to Rs.1,36,76,000/- from July 1, 2019, to August 2021. The Trial Court allowed Court Receiver's Report No.21 of 2022. The petitioner argues that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) protects her rights as a suspended director of a corporate debtor, preventing the recovery of property. Liz Investment Private Limited executed an agreement as an agent of the receiver subject to payment of an initial royalty of Rs.1,10,000/- which was subsequently increased to Rs.5,26,000/-

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) protects the petitioner's rights as …

**Ratio:** Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC prohibits the recovery of property by an owner or lessor

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the receiver is not an owner or lessor seeking recovery of

…

**Interpretation:** Section 14 of the IBC is intended to protect the assets of the corporate debtor

…

**Application:** In this case, the petitioner, as a suspended director of the corporate debtor,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** AMIT BO…
- **Appellants:** Urshila Ajit…
- **Respondents:** Liz Traders…; Office of the…
- **Other parties:** Kohi…

## Timeline

- **2004-03-29 — Agreement Ex…**: Liz Investment Private Limited executed the agreement as an agent of receiver subject to…
- **2008-09-25 — Royalty In…**: The royalty was subsequently…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/urshila-ajit-kerkar-vs-office-of-the-court-receiver-high-court-bombay-anr-f06e4c57