Liquidation enforcement powers upheld for attachment and sale of identified immovable assets despite technical objections.

In a liquidation enforcement context, the Tribunal held that an execution application seeking attachment and sale of identified immovable properties to realise amounts recoverable from respondents was maintainable. It rejected objections based on Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 56 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, reasoning that the insolvency framework is a self-contained code and that the liquidator's powers under Section 35(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 support custody, control and realisation of assets. It further held that Section 231 of the Code does not bar execution and that Regulation 33 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits sale through prescribed modes. Technical objections to identification and description of properties were treated as non-fatal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the execution application seeking attachment and sale of the respondents' immovable properties to realise the amount directed in the earlier liquidation-related order was maintainable and whether the liquidator was entitled to the consequential directions for attachment, custody, sale, encumbrance entry and police aid.

Analysis: The application was filed to enforce an earlier order directing payment of the amount found recoverable from the respondents on account of fraudulent transactions. The objection that the matter could not proceed under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 56 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was repelled on the footing that the insolvency framework is a self-contained code and that the liquidator's powers under Section 35(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permit custody, control and realisation of assets for distribution. The Tribunal also held that Section 231 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not assist the respondents in defeating execution, and that Regulation 33 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 authorises sale of assets through the prescribed modes. The schedule of properties was sufficiently identified, and the technical objections regarding form and description were treated as non-fatal.

Conclusion: The execution application was maintainable and the liquidator was entitled to attachment of the scheduled properties, custody and control of the properties and title deeds, symbolic possession if tenanted, sale in accordance with the liquidation regulations, entry of encumbrance in the sub-registrar records, and police aid if required.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded in full and the liquidation estate was permitted to proceed against the scheduled properties for recovery and realisation in accordance with the insolvency framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A liquidator may invoke the tribunal's execution powers to secure, attach and realise properties identified as recoverable assets in a liquidation process, and technical objections cannot defeat enforcement of a substantive recovery order under the insolvency regime.

---