2019 (3) TMI 1746 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Direction to resolution professional to accept the claim of the applicant to the tune of ₹ 61,40,606.34 being full and final settlement - section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Counsel for resolution professional/liquidator contended that since the Tribunal passed liquidation order against the corporate debtor company, the applicant has to file separate claim before the liquidator. The applicant has a right during liquidation to present any claim before the liquidator. Counsel for the applicant has no objection if such a direction is given to the applicant to file the claim before the liquidator. It is also further brought to the notice of the Tribunal that liquidator had issued public notice calling for claims. It is true this Tribunal passed liquidation order against the corporate debtor. This application is filed during CIRP. Since liquidation order is passed and liquidator is appointed, therefore the applicant has to file its claim before the liquidator as per provisions of the Code dealing with liquidation. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of ex-employee under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Validity of the claim amount and settlement statements.
3. Allegations of partial admission of claim by resolution professional.
4. Requirement to file claim before the liquidator post liquidation order.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed by an ex-employee seeking direction under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the resolution professional to accept the claim amount of ?61,40,606.34 as full settlement. The applicant had worked for the corporate debtor till January 31, 2014, and received a settlement statement via email in 2015 stating the total payable amount as ?1,22,22,969.34. Despite receiving a partial amount and pursuing legal avenues, the applicant alleged non-payment of the remaining dues.

2. The applicant claimed that a TDS certificate was issued for the deducted amount, and a portion of the total sum was received. However, discrepancies were alleged in the settlement, including deductions for expenses related to a Mercedes car. The applicant raised concerns regarding the partial admission of the claim by the resolution professional and the lack of clarity on the basis for such partial approval.

3. The resolution professional contended that post liquidation order, the applicant should file the claim before the liquidator. The Tribunal acknowledged the liquidation order and directed the applicant to present the claim before the liquidator as per the provisions of the Code dealing with liquidation. The applicant was advised to pursue the claim through the appropriate channel during the liquidation process.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application, emphasizing the necessity for the applicant to file the claim before the liquidator for further consideration in accordance with the legal framework governing liquidation proceedings. The judgment clarified the procedural requirement post liquidation order and guided the applicant on the appropriate course of action to address the claim effectively within the insolvency and bankruptcy framework.