Tribunal Orders Counsel to Present NCLAT Order, Suspended Directors to Cooperate, Rejects Property Registration

The Tribunal directed the counsel to place the NCLAT's order on record, instructed suspended directors to cooperate in the CIRP process, and rejected the request for property registration in favor of the Corporate Debtor, emphasizing the need for specific performance of the contract through the Competent Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Order to place the order passed by NCLAT on record
2. Relief sought in IA/2715/2020 regarding cooperation in CIRP process and car ownership
3. Relief sought in IA-565/2021 regarding property registration

Issue 1: Order to place the order passed by NCLAT on record
In this issue, the Tribunal directed the counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3 to place the order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in Company Appeal No. 693/2021 on record within one week. This direction was given as the respondents had preferred an appeal against the closure of the right to file a reply, and the NCLAT had allowed the appeal, instructing the NCLT to place the reply on record.

Issue 2: Relief sought in IA/2715/2020 regarding cooperation in CIRP process and car ownership
The applicant in IA/2715/2020 sought various reliefs, including directing the suspended directors to cooperate in the CIRP process and not to leave the country until completion. The Tribunal noted that the cars mentioned in the application had already been handed over, and the respondents had left the country. The Tribunal directed the respondents to furnish all required information within 15 days, failing which criminal proceedings would be initiated. The application was disposed of based on these considerations.

Issue 3: Relief sought in IA-565/2021 regarding property registration
In IA-565/2021, the Resolution Professional sought directions for property registration in favor of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal considered submissions regarding an agreement dated 16.12.2016 and the property's inclusion in the Resolution Plan. It was highlighted that the property was not taken possession of by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal referred to Section 54 of the TP Act, emphasizing that an agreement alone does not create any right or interest in the property. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the prayer, suggesting the Resolution Professional seek specific performance of the contract through the Competent Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed issues related to NCLAT order placement, cooperation in CIRP process, car ownership, and property registration, providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each matter.

---