2021 (3) TMI 583 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Non-payment of salary - illegal actions by the Resolution Professional - inclusion of salary expenses as CIRP cost in the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - What appears is that the Appellant is reagitating what is already recorded in WEATHER MAKERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PARABOLIC DRUGS LIMITED 2021 (3) TMI 501 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH and only because the liberty was given, the present Appeal is filed. The Appeal does not spell out grounds as required by Section 61 (3) of IBC and continues to agitate claims, discussed in Order dated 17.02.2021 - there are no reason to entertain the present Appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Non-payment of salary, illegal actions by Resolution Professional, inclusion of salary expenses in Resolution Plan, opportunity of hearing before Adjudicating Authority, entitlement to salary during CIRP proceedings, denial of claim by Respondent, admission of grievances in Resolution Plan, disposal of earlier appeal, comparison with previous claims, reagitation of claims, grounds for appeal under Section 61(3) of IBC.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed an appeal due to non-payment of salary and alleged illegal actions by the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before deciding on the approval of the Resolution Plan. The final order by the Adjudicating Authority did not address the detailed arguments and submissions made by the Appellant.

2. The Appellant claimed entitlement to salary dues during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as he continued to work as Vice-President. The Appellant argued that he was only paid for three months during the CIRP and not thereafter.

3. The Respondent's counsel contended that the services of the Appellant were not utilized during the CIRP, and the claim for salary was denied. It was stated that the legitimate grievances of the Appellant were included in the Resolution Plan and duly settled.

4. Referring to a previous appeal, the Resolution Plan was approved, and the claim of the Appellant regarding a specific amount was admitted. However, the Appellant's claim for salary during his second stint as Vice President was not admitted for the period after the commencement of the CIRP.

5. The Respondent's counsel argued that the present appeal was a repetition of claims made in the previous appeal and highlighted the similarities between the two.

6. The Appellant's counsel mentioned that the present appeal was filed based on the liberty granted in the previous order to file a fresh appeal under Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

7. The Tribunal found that the present appeal reiterated issues already addressed in the previous order and lacked proper grounds as required by Section 61(3) of the IBC. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to entertain the appeal and disposed of it accordingly.