JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (in short as the “GIDC”) to challenge the judgment and order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition, setting aside the orders dated 13.12.2021 terminating the lease deed dated 21.02.2008 as well as the order dated 10.03.2022 directing for eviction of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short as the “Public Premises Act’ 1972” or PP Act’ 1972).

2. Both the orders were subjected to challenge in the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein viz. Gujarat Hydrocarbon Power SEZ Ltd. primarily on the ground that they were passed during the subsistence of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short as “IBC’ 2016”). It was argued before the writ court that in view of Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC’ 2016, any recovery of any property by the lessor which in the possession of the Corporate debtor would be prohibited and hence, the order terminating of lease and eviction under the PP Act’ 1972, cannot be sustained.

3. The learned Single Judge while adverting to the facts of the case, has framed the point of determination that :-

“Whether the respondent No.1–GIDC being operational creditor is/was justified in passing the impugned orders during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC and also during the CIRP?”.

4. To answer the said question, the writ court has deliberated on the statutory provisions incorporated in Sections 3(27), 14, 25, 31 and 238 of the IBC’ 2016 to record that in view of the term “property” as defined in Section 3(27) of the Code, the property of the Corporate debtor viz. the respondent no.1 herein would necessarily include its lease hold rights over the land in question.

5. Referring to Section 14(1)(d) in conjunction with the Explanation attached thereto, it was held that the ‘property’ defined under Section 3(27) of IBC’ 2016, viz. the land in question, which continues to remain in possession of the Corporate debtor pursuant to a lease deed, cannot be recovered by the respondent GIDC being the lessor, during the subsistence of the moratorium. It was opined by the learned Single Judge that :-

(i) The object and underlying rationale of clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 are clearly to preserve the assets and maintain the value of the Corporate debtor as a going concern during the resolution process. A conjoint reading of these provisions with the Explanation to sub-section (1) makes it evident that the legislature, in its wisdom, sought to ensure that any licence, permit, registration, etc. conferred by any Government or statutory authority, shall not be suspended or terminated merely on the ground of insolvency, provided there is no default in respect of current dues.

(ii) This legislative scheme, when read as a whole, demonstrates that while each clause of sub-section (1) of Section 14 operates independently, they are intended to function harmoniously to give full effect to the protective framework of the moratorium. The cumulative intention of the legislature is unmistakable to safeguard the property and business interests of the Corporate debtor, to preserve its value, and to ensure that the continuity of its operations is not jeopardized during the corporate insolvency resolution process.

(iii) The writ Court referring to Sections 25 and 31(1) of the IBC’ 2016 has noted the duty of the Resolution Professional to preserve, protect and maintain the assets, books of accounts and records of Corporate debtor, so that upon approval of the resolution plan, the same may be seamlessly handed over to the successful resolution applicant in an orderly manner. With the approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, the same shall be binding on the Corporate debtor, it