Tribunal: Section 32A of Insolvency Code grants immunity in CIRP & liquidation.

The Tribunal held that Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code applies to both Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and liquidation proceedings, providing immunity against prosecution and preventing action on the debtor's property. The Liquidator was granted permission to sell the attached assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 32A without requiring de-attachment. The Tribunal emphasized that the new provision supersedes prior judicial decisions and allows for the sale of attached assets. The respondents were directed to cooperate with the Liquidator, and the application was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) to liquidation proceedings.
2. Liquidator's authority to sell attached assets under Section 32A.
3. Impact of prior judicial decisions on the attachment of assets.
4. Rights crystallization and subsequent changes in law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 32A of the I&B Code to Liquidation Proceedings:
The Liquidator, Mr. Anil Goel, filed an application under Section 32A of the I&B Code seeking permission to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor (CD), which were attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The respondent's counsel argued that Section 32A is not applicable to liquidation proceedings and is only relevant when a resolution plan is approved. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 32A applies to both CIRP and liquidation, as stated in the object behind the section's insertion and the wording of subsection (2) of Section 32A. The Tribunal concluded that Section 32A is intended to provide immunity against prosecution and prevent action against the property of the CD during both CIRP and liquidation.

2. Liquidator's Authority to Sell Attached Assets Under Section 32A:
The Liquidator contended that the attachment of assets hampers the sale of the CD as a going concern. The Tribunal examined Section 32A, which provides immunity from prosecution for offences committed prior to the commencement of CIRP and prevents action against the property of the CD. The Tribunal found that the Liquidator has the authority to proceed with the sale of the attached assets under Section 32A, without needing to seek de-attachment. The buyer, upon purchasing the assets, can then seek appropriate relief for de-attachment.

3. Impact of Prior Judicial Decisions on the Attachment of Assets:
The Tribunal acknowledged that previous applications for de-attachment were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court. However, these decisions were based on the situation before the amendment introducing Section 32A. The Tribunal emphasized that the new provision changes the legal landscape, allowing the Liquidator to sell the attached assets despite prior judicial decisions.

4. Rights Crystallization and Subsequent Changes in Law:
The respondent's counsel argued that the attachment had attained finality and subsequent changes in law (Section 32A) should not affect the crystallized rights. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Lekh Raj v. Ranjit Singh, which held that subsequent changes in law do not affect rights that have already attained finality. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case by noting that the Liquidator is not seeking de-attachment but merely permission to sell the attached assets under the new legal provision. The Tribunal concluded that Section 32A's non-obstante clause allows the Liquidator to proceed with the sale, and the buyer can seek de-attachment post-sale.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Liquidator to sell the attached assets of the CD under Section 32A of the I&B Code, subject to the buyer's right to apply for de-attachment. The Tribunal directed the respondents to cooperate with the Liquidator in the sale process. The application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---