9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 566 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of Liquidator/Respondent's decision for not accepting his claim - applicant offered personal services as a Freelancer and was not an employee - HELD THAT - It is seen from the e-mails which were sent by the Applicant to the erstwhile Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor which shows that the Applicant was not in employment of the Company after April 2013 - It is also seen from the documents that the Applicant was offering his personal services to a few Companies as a Freelancer and as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, as per the Standing Orders, 1946 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1946. In the present case, the Applicant has not given any documentary evidence as well as not furnished copies of IT returns as directed by this Tribunal dated 04.11.2019 and further stated that ITR V for assessment Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were only furnished and in regard to Form 26 AS for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 reflects that remuneration is being paid to the Applicant by the 2 Companies viz., M/s. TUV-SUD South Asia P. Ltd. and M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. The claim of the Applicant seems to be a bogus one and hence the rejection order dated 28.01.2019 passed by Respondent/Liquidator does not warrant any interference by this Adjudicating Authority - Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application for rejection of Liquidator's decision and direction for sanctioning the claim. 2. Non-cooperation of Corporate Debtor with Liquidator regarding employee's claim. 3. Application for access to mail server and retrieval of mails from Corporate Debtor. 4. Maintainability of the Applications filed by the Applicant. 5. Compliance with Tribunal's directions regarding IT Returns and Form 26 AS. 6. Employment status of the Applicant with different companies. 7. Documentary evidence and financial transactions related to the Applicant's employment. Issue 1: The Applicant filed an Application seeking to reject the Liquidator's decision for not accepting his claim and for direction to sanction the claim. The Applicant claimed to have joined the Corporate Debtor in 2012 and continued working without receiving salary. The Liquidator rejected the claim citing lack of proof and non-cooperation from the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant argued that salary payment and TDS deduction serve as prima facie evidence, but the Liquidator disagreed. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's claim lacked credibility and dismissed the Application. Issue 2: The non-cooperation of the Corporate Debtor with the Liquidator regarding the employee's claim was highlighted. The Liquidator returned the claim citing lack of proof and non-cooperation from the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant insisted on the validity of his claim based on salary payment evidence. However, the Respondent/Liquidator contended that there was no evidence of continuous employment after 2013 and lack of cooperation from ex-Directors and employees. The Tribunal upheld the Liquidator's decision due to insufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's claim. Issue 3: Another Application was filed by the Applicant seeking access to the mail server of the Corporate Debtor for retrieving mails. The Respondent/Liquidator argued against the maintainability of both Applications, stating lack of evidence of continuous service by the Applicant after 2013. The Respondent/Liquidator also mentioned the unavailability of mail data from 2014 due to returning the laptop to the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found the Applications not maintainable and dismissed them. Issue 4: The Respondent/Liquidator challenged the maintainability of the Applications filed by the Applicant, emphasizing the lack of proof regarding continuous employment. The Respondent/Liquidator also mentioned the absence of cooperation from ex-Directors and employees, leading to insufficient evidence to support the Applicant's claim. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent/Liquidator and dismissed both Applications. Issue 5: Regarding compliance with Tribunal's directions, the Respondent/Liquidator pointed out the Applicant's failure to provide IT Returns and Form 26 AS for a specific period. The Respondent/Liquidator highlighted the Applicant claiming salary during the Corporate Debtor's liquidation process. The Tribunal noted the lack of documentary evidence from the Applicant and dismissed the Applications due to insufficient proof. Issue 6: The employment status of the Applicant with different companies was a subject of contention. The Respondent/Liquidator raised doubts about the Applicant's continuous employment after 2013. The Tribunal observed evidence suggesting the Applicant offered personal services as a Freelancer to other companies, potentially conflicting with the Corporate Debtor's rules. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Applicant's employment history and dismissed the Applications. Issue 7: The Tribunal examined documentary evidence and financial transactions related to the Applicant's employment claims. The Respondent/Liquidator presented evidence indicating the Applicant's employment with other companies, contradicting the Applicant's claims. The Tribunal found the Applicant's claim lacking credibility and dismissed the Applications based on insufficient evidence and questionable employment status.
|
