Prohibition under S. 14(1)(a) is applicable to Section 66 of IBC also, the Tribunal observed that both the provisions are independent, incorporated for different purposes and they have to be read independently to achieve the object of the enactment. The Tribunal stated that “Section 14 of IBC is intended to prevent fictitious claims by 3rd parties to realise the amount by execution of the orders decrees etc. whereas Section 66 of IBC is intended to prevent fraudulent trading or business by corporate debtor through its corporate insolvency resolution professional or suspended directors, during insolvency resolution process or liquidation process.” The Tribunal relied on M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa Muddala, AIR 1961 SC 1107; CIT v. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352 and Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107 and opined that the provisions should be construed harmoniously to give effect the legislation and must be interpreted in such a way to avoid inconsistency or repugnancy. The Tribunal observed that the both the provisions, Ss. 14(1)(a) and 66 of IBC should be harmoniously constructed to make the enactment effective and workable and there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between them. The Tribunal also observed that S. 60(5)(a) of IBC permits the NCLT to pass any order on any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force..