https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430015 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. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2022 22:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430015 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. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430015