[2020] ibclaw.in 127 NCLAT

NCLAT held that it is also apparent that the Sub Registrar failed to incorporate the attachment in the register. Therefore, the Recovery Officer of EPFO issued a reminder on 10th May 2018 and 29th November 2019 for incorporating attachment of the immovable property in the record. The Respondent has filed the attachment order dated 04th August 2017, which shows that the attachment order of immovable property of the Corporate Debtor was made by the Recovery Officer Employees Provident Organization on 04th August 2017. The petition under Section 7 was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority by Order dated 04th February 2019. Thus it is apparent that the attachment of the immovable property in question had already existed prior to the initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The Sub Registrar indeed failed in his duty to incorporate the attachment in the register, despite receiving the attachment order on 16th August 2017 and after that reminder letter DT 14th May 2018 and 29th November 2018. The Section 14 of the IBC prohibits transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein by the Corporate Debtor. In this case, the alleged encumbrance certificate which was issued during Moratorium is only the incorporation of earlier Order in the record. But in fact attachment of the property was made much before the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. It is also clear that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the Order even without considering the submission and objections of the Appellant. Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the fact that attachment of the property was made much before the issuance of the CIRP.