AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3274 ::AIROnline 2020 SC 266 ::2020 (13) SCC 208 ::(2020) 4 Scale 502 ::(2020) 6 All MR 282 (SC) ::2020 SCC OnLine SC 292

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian , JJJ

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.14(1)(d), S.238, S.7— Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (28 of 1977) , S.76, S.79— Insolvency proceedings - Moratorium - Interpretation of S. 14(1)(d) of Code - S. 14(1)(d) of Code, when it speaks about recovery of property 'occupied', does not refer to rights or interests created in property but only refers to actual physical occupation of property. Maxim - reddendo singula singulis - Applicability.Interpretation of Statutes - Legislative intent. The Joint Development Agreement, makes it clear that a license is granted to the developer (i.e. the Corporate Debtor) to enter upon the land, demolish the existing structures and to construct and erect new structures and allot tenements in such constructed structures in three categories - (1) the earlier tenants/licensees of structures that were demolished; (2) tenements to be allotted free of cost to MHADA; and (3) what is to as 'free sale component' which the developers then sell and exploit to recover or recoup cost and make profit. A bare reading of S. 14(1)(d) of the Code would make it clear that it does not deal with any of the assets or legal right or beneficial interest in such assets of the corporate debtor. For this reason, any reference to Ss. 18 and 36, as was made by the NCLT, becomes wholly unnecessary in deciding the scope of ....