Subsisting monetary orders remain executable despite appeal where no stay exists; enforcement by attachment was sustained.

A subsisting monetary order remains enforceable unless it is stayed or set aside, so mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend execution or prevent attachment of assets. The Tribunal's orders are executable as decrees, and the prescribed execution mechanism under the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, 2016 does not fail merely because the proceeding is styled as contempt when the substance is enforcement of a money liability. The attachment-based recovery direction was therefore legally sustainable, and the recovery steps could continue in the absence of any stay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mere pendency of an appeal, without any stay, barred enforcement of the impugned order directing payment of money and permitting attachment of assets; (ii) Whether the execution/contempt route adopted for enforcing the order was legally sustainable under the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the mere pendency of an appeal, without any stay, barred enforcement of the impugned order directing payment of money and permitting attachment of assets.

Analysis: An order determining a monetary liability continues to operate unless it is set aside or stayed by a superior forum. Mere filing of an appeal does not suspend its enforceability. In the absence of stay, the order remained subsisting in law and was capable of execution, including recourse to coercive steps for recovery. The principles governing stay of money decrees also weighed against any automatic protection merely because appellate proceedings were pending.

Conclusion: The pendency of the appeal did not bar enforcement of the order, and the absence of stay justified continuation of execution steps.

Issue (ii): Whether the execution/contempt route adopted for enforcing the order was legally sustainable under the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Analysis: Orders of the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal are enforceable as decrees by virtue of Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the execution mechanism under Rule 56 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 is linked to the prescribed form and the limited procedural reference to Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The presence of a specific execution route did not render enforcement impermissible merely because the proceeding was styled as contempt, since substance prevails over form. The subordinate form could not cut down the statutory enforceability of a subsisting order, and attachment of assets was consistent with execution of a money liability.

Conclusion: The enforcement mechanism adopted was legally sustainable, and the direction for recovery by attachment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the impugned enforcement order was sustained, leaving the monetary liability and recovery directions in force.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting monetary order of the Tribunal remains executable unless stayed or set aside, and its enforcement cannot be defeated by the mere pendency of an appeal or by relying on a formal defect in the mode of execution when the statute permits execution of Tribunal orders as decrees.

---