2022 (3) TMI 1058 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Whether the Operational Creditor is entitled for the refund of the training costs of ₹ 25,00,000/- along with interest? - deduction of TDS - HELD THAT - A demand notice was issued calling upon the Corporate Debtor to pay the outstanding amounts. The demand notice dated 13.02.2020 does not specify the amounts that are due. It specifies that a demand notice is enclosed but no such enclosure is found with the said demand notice. The enclosed demand notice is nothing but the application filed before the Tribunal in Form-5. A reply notice was issued on 18.02.2020 stating that the Operational Creditor joined service with effect from 29.06.2015 and continued till 28.02.2017 and that he paid ₹ 25,00,000/- as training costs and he completed the training hence, he is not entitled for the refund of the said amount. When there are disputed question of facts pertaining to the manner and period of training this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the same. Whether the Corporate Debtor is due any amount to the Operational Creditor and whether he has committed default of the same? - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the Operational Creditor has voluntarily resigned from the service. Clause - 6 (F) (iv) is clear with regard to the obligations in case of resignation of Pilot. The resignation is tendered on 28.02.2017. The full and final settlement of accounts shows that the amount payable thereunder was mentioned. The same is filed by the Operational Creditor himself from which it can be understood that the said amount was received by the Operational Creditor. TDS dues for the month of January February, 2017 - HELD THAT - Since the salaries are not paid to the Operational Creditor. The TDS amounts are not credited to the account is the argument of the Corporate Debtor's Counsel which is cogent. When it is found that no salaries are due, the question of paying interest would not arise hence, claim for interest is also rejected. There is no dispute that except for the months of January February, 2017 the salaries pertaining to the period prior to the date of termination are paid. Pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT - It can be seen that the contention of the Corporate Debtor is not that there is any dispute with regard to the payments that have to be made to the Corporate Debtor. The contention is that there is no due at all to the Operational Creditor - Form the material brought before the Tribunal it is found that no amount is due to the Operational Creditor. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement for the refund of training costs.
2. Due amount from the Corporate Debtor and default.
3. Final decision on the petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement for the refund of training costs
The Operational Creditor sought a refund of ?25,00,000 for training costs due to non-renewal of licenses by the Corporate Debtor. The Employment Agreement outlined terms for training, probation, and termination. The Operational Creditor resigned due to non-renewal of licenses, triggering a demand for payment. However, the Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor completed training, received documents, and was not entitled to a refund. Disputed facts on training rendered the Tribunal unable to decide, citing precedent for such cases. As the Operational Creditor resigned voluntarily, the claim for a refund was rejected.

Issue 2: Due amount from Corporate Debtor and default
The Corporate Debtor denied any due amount to the Operational Creditor post-resignation. The Employment Agreement specified obligations upon resignation, including full and final settlement. The Operational Creditor claimed unpaid salaries and TDS dues for January & February 2017. However, the Corporate Debtor contended that salaries were paid except for those two months. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment on limitation for IBC applications, leading to the rejection of the claim due to the application being filed beyond three years from the alleged default. The Corporate Debtor asserted no dues existed, and the Tribunal concurred based on the evidence presented.

Final Decision:
Based on the analysis of the issues, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as no amount was found due to the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. The rejection was supported by the lack of evidence for a refund of training costs and the absence of outstanding dues post-resignation.