9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2184 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection to Corporate Debtor to vacate the premises belonging to the decree holder - HELD THAT - In view of sub-clause (1) of clause (d) of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the recovery of property by the owner occupied by the Corporate Debtor is not permissible during the period of moratorium. It was then contended that the period of moratorium is coming to an end on 15th August, 2018 thereafter the appellant has right to pursue for recovery of arrears of rent. We don t express any opinion in this regard as such issue can be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for direction to vacate premises during moratorium period. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal considered the challenge against the order rejecting the application by the landlord to direct the Corporate Debtor to vacate the premises during the moratorium period. The Tribunal referred to Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits the recovery of property by the owner occupied by the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium. The Tribunal highlighted that the recovery of property by the landlord is not permissible during this period. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the Corporate Debtor paying current rent for the period of moratorium as they are occupying the premises. The counsel for the appellant raised this point, suggesting that the Resolution Professional should ensure payment of rent. However, the Tribunal noted that this issue was not raised before the Adjudicating Authority and advised the appellant to bring it to the attention of the Resolution Professional or the Adjudicating Authority for consideration. Furthermore, the Tribunal discussed the timeline of the moratorium period coming to an end on a specific date. The appellant claimed the right to pursue recovery of arrears of rent once the moratorium period concludes. However, the Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on this matter, stating that it should be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with the observations made during the proceedings, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
