9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. Permit the applicant to be impleaded as a party respondent in Applications (mentioned in Annexure 'A'); ii. Pass any other and further relief as this Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and iii. Award costs in favour of the applicant. 3. The Applicant is an unsecured Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant vide this Application seeks to represent its interest as an unsecured financial creditor in respect of the claims due from the Corporate Debtor to the tune of Rs. 64,49,98,596/- (in three claims) and they are entitled for repayment of this amount. Out of this total claim of the applicant, the amount admitted by the Liquidator is Rs. 56,75,98,661/- 4. The Applicant stated that the Applications filed by the workmen/ employees of the Corporate Debtor before this Tribunal are motivated, misplaced and misconceived in law. Those application have been filed in order to delay and overturn the entire process of recovering pending dues from the Corporate Debtor, who happens to have debts amounting to crores of rupees to various creditors. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that this M.A has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred for impleading the Applicant as a party respondent in all the Applications filed by the workmen/employees as more particularly mentioned in Annexure A with this application, as it would be practically impossible for the Applicant to file intervention application in each of such applications filed by the workmen/employee as the number of applications are more than 60 in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Applicant prayed for leave of this Tribunal that the present application may be treated as intervention application filed in all the applications as more particularly mentioned in the List of Applications at Annexure: A of this application. 10. The Respondent, Liquidator filed a counter without opposing the application stated that the applicant herein is a secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor who had filed their claim to the tune of Rs. 6449,98,596/-. After proper scrutiny of the Books of Accounts and other supplementary evidences put forth by the Applicant, the respondent had admitted a claim of Rs. 56,75,98,661/-. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Liquidator stated that as on date, the total claim of the Workmen/Employees as admitted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is liable to be dismissed. The applicant further submitted that since Objections are of jurisdictional nature, which go to the root of the matter, and as per settled law, question relating to maintainability should be decided at first instance. The following preliminary objections were raised by the applicant. 15. The applicant stated that it is a settled principle of law that Applicant's claims are given the utmost priority under the Code. The Applicant further stated that it is the duty of the Liquidator to disburse gratuity dues preferentially as was held by the NCLAT, New Delhi in State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union [Company Appeal (AT) (nsolvency) No. 396 of 2019]. The courts have kept gratuity dues outside the waterfall mechanism to ensure that these dues are paid before payment of the other creditors. This mechanism protects workmen's interests as they are the most vulnerable stakeholders in the liquidation. It is based on such well-established principles that the workmen have filed the applications to recover their dues. Therefore, the plea to pay gratuity outside the waterfall mechanism is not trivial, and only made to delay the proceedings. 16. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the workmen/employees and the admission of the same by the Respondent No. 2. 20. The Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the action of the workmen would cause grave harm to the Respondent Kopran Limited as the conclusions in the matter would substantially affect the rights and claims of the Respondent. The claims of stakeholders were accepted by the Liquidator and was agreed upon by the stakeholders which has now being challenged by the workmen. If, so the claims of the Respondent M/s. Kopran Limited be defeated as a result of the appeals by the workmen which makes it clear that the Respondent be made a party to the said proceedings in order to put forth their claims. 21. The Respondent No. 1 has also denied the observation of the Applicant that the Respondent has downplayed the claims of the workmen. They submitted that it has never regarded the claims of the workmen as less important but has, in order to protect its rights, always tried to apprise this Tribunal about the propensity the prejudice that would be caused to the Respondent, if no opportunity is given to the Respondent to make its submissions/response to the Appeals of the workmen which if decided without c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
