Tribunal orders under the Companies Act are enforceable like decrees, and execution pleas should be read substantively.

A Tribunal order under the Companies Act, 2013 may be executed in the manner of a civil court decree under section 424(3), but it does not become a decree within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A prayer framed as a "decree" was therefore not maintainable in that strict sense, yet the Tribunal should have read the applications substantively as seeking executable relief and moulded the remedy to give effect to the earlier order. The relief was modified so the applicants could pursue execution of the prior order through appropriate applications before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application before the Tribunal could seek a formal decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have rejected the miscellaneous applications merely because the prayer was couched as a decree instead of treating the relief as a request for an executable order under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (i): Whether an application before the Tribunal could seek a formal decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The enforceability contemplated by section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 enables Tribunal orders to be executed in the manner of a civil court decree, but it does not convert such orders into decrees as defined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The concept of drawing a decree is tied to civil suit adjudication and the procedural framework of the civil courts. The Tribunal therefore could not be compelled to formulate a decree in the strict civil procedure sense on the basis of the administrator's report and demand notice.

Conclusion: The prayer for a formal decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not maintainable in the strict sense.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal ought to have rejected the miscellaneous applications merely because the prayer was couched as a decree instead of treating the relief as a request for an executable order under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The relief sought had to be read in substance, not in a hyper-technical manner. Since the earlier proceedings under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 had already led to directions concerning recovery and management, the use of the word "decree" in the applications should have been treated as a request for an executable order. The Tribunal could have moulded the relief to give effect to the earlier adjudication and avoided dismissal on a purely formal ground.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought to have treated the applications as seeking executable orders and not dismissed them solely because they were framed as prayers for a decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by modifying the relief so that the applicants could pursue execution of the earlier order under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 through appropriate applications before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal order under the Companies Act, 2013 is enforceable like a civil court decree, but it is not itself a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; where a prayer is substantively aimed at execution, the Tribunal should construe it pragmatically and mould the relief to secure enforcement of the prior order.

---