9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. R. Sudhinder, Mr. Soorjya Ganguli, Ms. Nimita Kaul, Ms. Pooja Chakraborty and Mr. Amrita Sarkar, Advocates JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant- Mr. Suresh Narayan Singh, Authorised Representative of 284 workers of Tayo Rolls Limited - ( Corporate Debtor ) against the order dated 3rd January, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I B Code ) preferred by the Appellant has been rejected on the ground that the application under Section 9 has to be filed by the Operational Creditor individually and not jointly. The Adjudicating Authority has also observed that otherwise also it is not practicable for more than one Operational Creditor to file a joint petition as they will have to issue their individual claim notices under Section 8 of the I B Code . 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the application was preferred by the Authorised Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code. 6. Therefore, it is clear that if there is a debt and there is a default which in this case has not been disputed by Tayo Rolls Limited - ( Corporate Debtor ), the application being complete, the Adjudicating Authority should have entertained the application, instead of raising a technical ground that it was filed on behalf of 284 workmen. If the application is maintainable by one of the workmen, in that capacity, it should have been treated to be an application of Operational Creditor and others could have been asked to file their respective claim before the Resolution Professional . Even in a demand notice under Section 8(1), the details of operational debt of each Operational Creditor can be shown by the authorized person. Only if in an individual claim of Operational Creditor the amount of debt is less than one lakh rupees, it can be rejected being not maintainable. 7. The Appellant along with Form-5 enclosed the wages due from October, 2016 to October, 2017 of different employees, a part of which is as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 196443.00 14 SHARDENDU SEKHAR SINGH 1602 14765.00 X13 191945.00 15 GANESH MAHATO 1605 14410.00 X13 187330.00 16 SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH 1606 15458.00 X13 200954.00 17 ALOK BANNERJEE 1607 15733.00 X13 204529.00 18 VINAYAK SINGH 1603 14765.00 X13 191945.00 19 SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA 1609 15864.00 X13 206232.00 20 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH 1610 15864.00 X13 206232.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15298.00 X13 198874.00 36 RAJENDRA PRASAD MAHATO 1642 15298.00 X13 198874.00 37 AMRIT PAL SINGH 1644 13903.00 X13 180739.00 38 MAHATANG TUDU 1642 15298.00 X13 198874.00 39 AJAY KUMAR SINGH 1658 15203.00 X13 197639.00 40 UPENDER KUMAR TIWARI 1659 15602.00 X13 202826.00 41 KRISHNA KUMAR 1661 15602.00 X13 202826.00 42 NAVIN KUMAR 1662 15077.00 X13 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
