TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent : Mr. Sankar P Panicker , Adv ORDER 1. This Petition is filed by the Liquidator as an Execution Application under Section 424 (3) of Companies Act, 2013 R/w Rule 56 of NCLT Rules, 2016. The brief background of the case necessary to dispose of this Application are as follows: 2. M/s. Archana Motors Private Limited, the CD, was on 10.01.2020 ordered to be liquidated by this Adjudicating Authority in M.A.No.38/ KOB/2020, and pursuant thereto appointed the Applicant herein as the Liquidator. The Respondents are erstwhile directors of the CD. During the liquidation process, it was discovered that certain fraudulent acts were committed by the Respondents, which consequently caused a loss of Rs.21.37 crores to the CD. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondents. 7. The Respondents argue that the third of them herein, who is aged and reputed, was a non-executive director and has not never taken active part in the management of the CD, and hence is irrelevant to decide this application. Besides, the properties without the boundaries have not been correctly described and further this Application, albeit filed in Form No.8 of NCLT Rules, 2016, the declaration therein is not in accordance therewith. Patently, the objections of the Respondents are only technical attempting to find fault with the procedural Law rather than the substantial Law. It is settled proposition a procedural law is only a handmaid to the substantive law. 8. The Applicant filed the petition under Companies Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith rules 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 of Part III of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016." 11. The Applicant argued that he was constrained to invoke Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 56, since this Adjudicating Authority specifically directed him to do so in the earlier Application in M.A.(IBC) 07/KOB/2022 filed by him under Sec's.65 & 67, IBC to execute the order passed in I.A.(IBC) No.27/KOB/ 2021, and consequently dismissed it on 18.05.2022. The Respondents refute this by arguing that there is no such specific direction in the dismissal order. 12. However, the respective Counsel lost sight of the true spirit behind the observation in Para (15) thereof, extracted below, viz.: - "15. In view of the above, again a direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Ex-Director Sh. T.S Murali has fraudulently recorded the same in his name, the property bearing Plot No. G-158, Sector-41, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201302 is hereby attached. Warrants of attachment be affixed to the said property by the Liquidator, who shall take further steps for public auction of the same. The Respondents are directed to not to alienate, lease or create any kind of encumbrance or third-party interest in the property in question till the Order is fully complied." 15. In accordance with the Companies Act, only the ROC is furnished with a statement describing the properties of a company. The public are alerted not to deal with those properties only when the order of CIRP or Liquidation furnished to the ROC is reflected in t....