Exclusive jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer bars Company Court interference with confirmed auction sale; statutory appeal is the remedy.

Execution of a recovery certificate under the recovery statute remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer, and the Company Court cannot interfere with a sale confirmed in that process merely because the debtor-company is in liquidation. The Official Liquidator may be associated with the sale process, but that does not confer supervisory power on the Company Court to cancel, confirm, or re-examine the auction. Once objections are rejected and the sale is confirmed, the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appeal under the recovery legislation, and a parallel challenge before the Company Court is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the Recovery Officer's rejection of objections and confirmation of auction sale conducted in execution of a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. (ii) Whether the objectors were required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the recovery legislation rather than invoke the Company Court's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the Recovery Officer's rejection of objections and confirmation of auction sale conducted in execution of a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that proceedings for adjudication of debt and execution of the recovery certificate fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Recovery Officer under the recovery statute. The Company Court does not acquire supervisory jurisdiction over such execution merely because the debtor-company is in liquidation. The Official Liquidator is entitled to remain associated with the sale process, but that does not confer power on the Company Court to cancel, confirm, or re-examine the auction confirmed by the Recovery Officer. The earlier permission granted by the Company Court for sale outside winding up did not authorise later interference with the Recovery Officer's order, especially in light of the statutory scheme and the binding law on exclusivity and overriding effect.

Conclusion: The Company Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the Recovery Officer's order confirming the auction sale.

Issue (ii): Whether the objectors were required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the recovery legislation rather than invoke the Company Court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Once the Recovery Officer confirmed the sale and rejected objections, the remedy available to an aggrieved person was the appeal provided by the recovery statute. The statutory scheme does not permit a parallel challenge before the Company Court. The period spent before the Company Court was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes, and the objectors were relegated to the appellate forum under the recovery statute.

Conclusion: The objectors were required to pursue the statutory appeal, and their challenge before the Company Court was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The auction confirmation by the Recovery Officer was left undisturbed by the Company Court, the applications were dismissed, and the parties were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under the recovery legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the recovery statute, adjudication of debt and execution of the recovery certificate lie exclusively with the Tribunal and Recovery Officer, and the Company Court cannot interfere with or set aside a sale confirmed in such execution; the proper remedy is the statutory appeal under the recovery statute.

---