Enforcement of BIFR-confirmed sale survives SICA repeal, and Tribunal jurisdiction can compel conveyance execution.

The Tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce execution of conveyance and sale deeds was upheld, with Rule 11 inherent powers held available and the objection that only a civil court could grant relief rejected. The repeal of SICA did not extinguish the BIFR order confirming the sale, because the repeal statute saved such prior orders and left them operative and binding. On that basis, the surviving BIFR directions were enforceable before the Tribunal, and the respondents were required to complete the conveyancing and related acts in accordance with the confirmed sale process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Sections 424 and 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, to entertain the petition and grant directions for execution of conveyance and sale deeds. (ii) Whether the orders passed by the BIFR confirming the sale in favour of the petitioner survived the repeal of SICA and could be enforced by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Sections 424 and 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, to entertain the petition and grant directions for execution of conveyance and sale deeds.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that its inherent powers under Rule 11 were available and were not shown to be excluded by the respondents. It also held that the matter was within the Tribunal's competence under the Companies Act, 2013 and that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal within the permissible period after the repeal of SICA. The objection that only a civil court could grant the relief was rejected.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed, and the petition was maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders passed by the BIFR confirming the sale in favour of the petitioner survived the repeal of SICA and could be enforced by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the saving effect of Section 5(1)(d) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 and held that repeal did not affect the BIFR order confirming the sale. It found that the BIFR directions remained operative and binding, and therefore the respondent was bound to act in accordance with the confirmed sale process.

Conclusion: The BIFR orders confirming the sale remained valid and enforceable, and the respondents were bound to comply with them.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the confirmed sale in favour of the petitioner was directed to be implemented, and the respondents were required to complete the conveyancing and related acts in terms of the BIFR order.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory repeal does not nullify a prior confirmed order where the repealing statute expressly saves such orders, and the Tribunal may exercise its procedural and inherent powers to enforce the surviving order.

---