TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been filed under Sections 60(5) & 67 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC Code") read with Rules 11 and 51 of the National Company, 2016 by Ms. Ashok Velamur Seshadri, the Liquidator of Archana Motors Private Limited ("Corporate Debtor"), seeking the following prayers: a) pass an order directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs. 21.37 Crore decreed by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2021 in IA(IBC)/27/KOB/2021 to the account of the Liquidator forthwith; or b) If the respondents failed to pay the amount within the time prescribed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, to pass an order for enforcement and execution of the order/decree passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA/IBC/27/KO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Tribunal and make the payment. In the meantime, the Applicant has also identified properties owned by the Respondents. The details of the same are described in Schedule - 1 to 8 produced along with this Application. However, till date, the Respondents have not paid the amount to the account of the Liquidator. 5. The present application has been filed by the applicant for a direction to the respondents to comply with the order of this Tribunal passed in IA/(IBC)/27/KOB/2021 dated 13.07.2021, failing which to pass appropriate orders under Section 424 of the Companies Act, for enforcement of the order/decree passed by this Tribunal. 6. The Respondents filed their reply and stated that the present application filed by the Liquidator ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondents argued that in the Application there are errors, even in the facts as well as in the prayers. In Paragraph-16, the Applicant has mentioned about the properties mentioned in Schedule I to 8 belong to R2. However, in the main prayer No. 'a' in Page 11, it is mentioned that the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 to 8 is owned by R1. The above submissions are not correct as the properties belongs to R3. Hence on that ground itself the application is defective. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondents further argued that the Respondent 1 herein was the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor and Respondent No. 2 was the Executive Director and they were in charge of the day-to-day activities of the Company and Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondents argued that the claim of Rs. 21.37 Crore would be crystallised only after the Respondents have exhausted all their statutory remedies under the IBC 2016, and that the claim of Rs. 21.37 Crore itself is being challenged before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel further argued that the alleged figure of Rs. 21.37 Crore was as on 31/3/2018, whereas the Insolvency commencement date was 01.11.2019. 13. The learned counsel further stated that the Liquidator has not performed the duty cast on him to prepare the books of accounts as on the insolvency commencement date before making the claim of alleged fraud and had not even taken any effort to retrieve the data from the Hard Disk provided to him. Fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat prayer is declined. 16. Regarding the second prayer to pass an order for enforcement and execution of the order/decree passed by this Tribunal in lA/IBC/27/KOB/2021 vide order dated 13.07.2021 is concerned, we have gone through Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which is quoted as under:- Section 424:-Procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal ***** ***** (3) Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to send for execution of its orders to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the applicant under Section 60(5) and 67 of IBC and Rule 11 and 52 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Section 60(5) reads as under: Section 60(5) (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of-- (a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person; (b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidati....