# In the matter of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs.
Santanu T. Ray, Resolution Professional & Anr. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1004 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-05-04. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00505. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 May 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00505
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/maharashtra-industrial-development-corporation-vs-santanu-t-ray-resolution-profe-1061b42f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, concerning M.A. No. 3691 of 2019. The appellant, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), had allotted a plot to the Corporate Debtor on 23.12.2014, and a lease agreement was executed. A license was granted on 20.01.2015, requiring 20% construction completion within two years. A tripartite agreement was executed with DHFL, where the plot was mortgaged, and a loan was disbursed. MIDC issued a notice on 01.11.2018 to the Corporate Debtor to show cause for not completing construction. CIRP was initiated on 11.03.2019 against the Corporate Debtor. MIDC issued a letter on 29.01.2019 to DHFL, informing of the breach

…

## Facts

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) allotted Plot No. B-11 to a Corporate Debtor on 23.12.2014. A lease agreement was executed between MIDC and the Corporate Debtor. On 20.01.2015, a license was granted, requiring the Corporate Debtor to complete 20% construction within two years, i.e., by 19.01.2017. A tripartite agreement was executed between the Corporate Debtor, MIDC, and DHFL, where the plot was mortgaged to DHFL, and a loan of Rs.7,22,80,214/- was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor. On 01.11.2018, MIDC issued a notice to the Corporate Debtor asking it to show cause why action should not be taken for not completing construction. On 11.03.2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. On 29.01.2019,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether after initiation of CIRP and enforcement of 'Moratorium' under Section 14, the Appellant …

**Ratio:** The purpose and object of Moratorium is to temporarily freeze all actions as contemplated

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits actions

…

**Interpretation:** Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC prohibits the recovery of any property by an owner

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that since the CIRP was initiated on 11.03.2019,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Alok Sriv…; +2 more
- **Appellants:** Maharashtra…
- **Respondents:** Santanu T. Ray,…
- **Advocates:** Chetan Ka…; Rohan Ag…; +9 more

## Timeline

- **2014-12-23 — Plot Allo…**: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) allotted Plot No. B-11 to the…
- **2015-01-20 — License G…**: A license was granted, requiring the Corporate Debtor to complete 20% construction within…

## 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/nclat-new-delhi/maharashtra-industrial-development-corporation-vs-santanu-t-ray-resolution-profe-1061b42f