2019 (10) TMI 1386 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - pre-existing dispute or not - services rendered by the Applicant to the Corporate Debtor during the period of employment of the Applicant - HELD THAT - On perusal of the appointment Letter of the Applicant along with the Salary Structure; the Resignation relating Email; the Reply Email and the Email reminders issued by the Applicant seeking his dues; it appears that the Corporate Debtor's has spurious defence to show an existing dispute, which is an attempt to deny an employee his legitimate dues. It is established that there is an operational debt as per section 5(21) of the Code, 2016 and default of more than Rupees One Lakh is proved. The corporate debtor has not placed any document on record to establish the pre-existing dispute - it is observed that no dispute was in existence before the receipt of Demand Notice - application has been filed well within limitation. The application is complete hence deserves to be admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
Application under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for default in payment of services rendered by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Application Filing:
The application (CP 4538/2018) was filed by the Operational Creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of dues amounting to ?9,05,000 for services rendered during the Applicant's employment period. The Applicant, a Chartered Accountant, was appointed as the Head of Sales and Marketing with a specific pay scale as per the appointment letter.

2. Non-Payment and Communication:
Despite completing the assigned work and handing it over, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the dues. The Applicant sent reminder emails and issued a Demand Notice demanding the outstanding amount. The Corporate Debtor replied, attempting to deny the dues on inadequate grounds, which were deemed as an afterthought to create a defense.

3. Legal Proceedings and Dispute Resolution:
The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Applicant did not serve the full notice period and caused losses to the Company. However, the Tribunal found the Corporate Debtor's defense to be spurious and lacking evidence of a pre-existing dispute. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd.", the Tribunal emphasized the need to differentiate between genuine disputes and feeble arguments.

4. Admission of Application and Moratorium Order:
After thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions, the Tribunal admitted the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A moratorium was declared under section 14, prohibiting various actions against the Corporate Debtor. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and necessary directions were issued for the insolvency resolution process.

5. Conclusion and Orders:
The Tribunal directed immediate communication of the order to all relevant parties and emphasized compliance with the moratorium and resolution process regulations. The public announcement regarding the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process was also mandated.

In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the application, declared a moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the insolvency resolution process, following a detailed analysis of the legal and factual aspects of the case.