Two appeals were preferred by the management of a Corporate Debtor (CD) against two orders wherein the Adjudicating authority had passed orders of liquidation under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Co

Two appeals were preferred by the management of a Corporate Debtor (CD) against two orders wherein the Adjudicating authority had passed orders of liquidation under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Code 2016 of companies with certain directions to the liquidator. Prior to this, two separate appeals were preferred by resolution applicant(s) in respect of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (CIRP) initiated against the above said corporate debtor wherein opportunity was given to them to submit better revised resolution plan(s) and the 'committee of creditors' were directed to consider them. However, subsequently, the resolution applicants withdrew their appeals. Sekar, the appellant, raised concerns regarding the actions of the liquidator, Amit, specifically regarding the handling of asset sales. The core issue was whether the liquidator had acted in accordance with the provisions of the IBC and the associated regulations, particularly regarding the maximization of asset value and the exploration of options like "going concern" sales. The appellant argued that the liquidator's actions, such as selling spare parts, were detrimental to the company's value and that a "going concern" sale should have been prioritized. On the above background referring the relevant case law(s) and provisions of the IBC, 2016 and regulations made thereunder answer the following questions: How does this case contribute to the interpretation of the liquidator's powers and duties under the IBC, 2016?