# In the matter of Rajendra K. Bhutta Vs. Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority and Another Civil Appeal No. 12248 of 2018

> SC judgment dated 2020-02-19. Citation: TCN-2020-SC-00070. This case involves an appeal regarding the interpretation of Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 19 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-SC-00070
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-k-bhutta-vs-maharashtra-housing-area-development-authority-and-another-4024226f

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal regarding the interpretation of Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) entered into a joint development agreement with Guru Ashish Construction Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for a redevelopment project. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on loan repayments to Union Bank of India, leading to an insolvency application under Section 7 of the IBC. A moratorium was declared, but MHADA issued a termination notice to the Corporate Debtor. The appellant, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), sought to restrain MHADA from taking possession of the land. The NCLT dismissed the application, stating that Section 14(1)(d) does not cover licenses under Joint

…

## Facts

1. MHADA and Guru Ashish Construction Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 01.11.2007 for a redevelopment project on approximately 40 acres of land in Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai, involving 672 tenements.
2. The Maharashtra State Government approved the resolution for the JDA on 03.03.2008.
3. A Tripartite Joint Development Agreement was executed on 10.04.2008 between the Society representing 672 tenements, MHADA, and the Corporate Debtor.
4. A Loan Agreement was entered into between Union Bank of India and the Corporate Debtor on 25.03.2011 for Rs. 200 Crores.
5. A Deed of Modification was executed on 09.11.2011 to adjust the land area to 47 acres due to survey discrepancies.
6. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on loan

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to the recovery of …

**Ratio:** The term 'occupied' in Section 14(1)(d) refers to actual physical occupation or use of

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that a bare reading of Section 14(1)(d) makes it clear that it does

…

**Interpretation:** Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC aims to prevent the recovery of property from a

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that the Joint Development Agreement granted a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** ROHINTON FALI…; S. Ravindr…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** RAJENDRA K.…
- **Respondents:** Guru Ashish…; MAHARASHTRA…

## Timeline

- **2007-11-01 — Resolution…**: MHADA passed a resolution to execute a joint development agreement with Guru Ashish…
- **2008-03-03 — Government A…**: The Maharashtra State Government…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14(1) — 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/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-k-bhutta-vs-maharashtra-housing-area-development-authority-and-another-4024226f