9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the applicant - Since the Resolution Professional (R.P) had already received Resolution Plan from the prospective Resolution Applicant and the same is under consideration of the Committee of Creditors; the applicant is directed to submit all the documents requested for by the Resolution Professional through his letter dated 02.11.2020, without fail, in any case within two weeks from today. If the applicant produces the documents sought for by the R.P within two weeks, the R.P is directed to explore all possibilities to settle the claim of the applicant and give a reply to the applicant before finalisation of the Resolution Plan. Application disposed off. - MA/177/KOB/2020 in TIBA/11/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2020 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah , Member ( Judicial ) For the Applicant : Shri Dinesh R.Shenoy , Advocate For the Respondents : Shri Bijoy P. Pulipra , PCS ( Resolution Professional ) ORDER This M.A has been filed by an employee (General Manager, Finance) of the Corporate Debtor in TIBA 11/KOB of 2019 under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Resolution Professional of M/s PVS Memorial Hospital Private Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . But when he verified the website of the RP on 20.10.2020, he was totally shocked that a list of claims was published by RP in which the claim of the applicant was also reflected for the reason as it is an excess claim. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Applicant has not been provided any opportunity to substantiate his claim as provided for in Regulation 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. There is absolute violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrariness and violation of principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court with regard to the manner and mode in which quasi-judicial authorities can exercise their powers and functions in determining civil claims and adjudicating disputes of civil rights. 4. The Applicant also stated in the MA that he had produced the Bank statement from Axis Bank bearing Account No. 081010100030825 for the period from 01.08.2017 to 31.08.2017 as directed by the RP which clearly reflects the salary credited in the Applicant s account on 09.08.2017 as ₹ 7,98,200/- (Seven Lakhs Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver and consequent retrieval of the financial information stored therein, to his satisfaction and admitted the claims after due verification. The allegations of the Applicant regarding the non-communication of the claim rejection is denied by the Respondent in view of Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The above Regulation do not require the Resolution Professional to adjudicate the claims and intimate the same to all the claimants. The Code requires the Resolution Professional only to verify and determine the claims. 8. It is further stated in the counter that as per Regulation 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, where the amount claimed by a creditor is not precise due to any contingency or other reasons, the Interim Resolution Professional or the Resolution Professional, as the case may be, shall make the best estimate of the amount of the claim based on the information available with him. The Resolution Professional is not an Adjudicating Authority and is not required to enquire into the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other documents to substantiate the claim, as the records of the Corporate Debtor are not matching with the claim form. However, to his dismay, instead of submitting the data called for by the Resolution Professional, the Applicant filed this Application making various allegations against the Resolution Professional in particular and the CIRP in general. 11. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating most of his contentions made in the M.A. 12. This Tribunal heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as also the R.P who appeared in person through video conferencing and have thoroughly perused all the papers placed on record. 13. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the claim put forward by the applicant before the R.P can be entertained by the R.P in view of the facts and reasons stated in the application and the counter filed by the Respondent. 14. On verification of records, it is seen that the applicant claimed that his salary was raised from ₹ 1,05,000/- per month to ₹ 12,05,000/- per month with effect from 01st April, 2016. However, from the records produced by the applicant, it is not clear as to revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Also, the amount claimed as Provident Fund is inadmissible as the amount of Provident fund payable to the employees is claimed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. In order to avoid duplication, the claim for the PF portion included in Form D 1 is considered as inadmissible. 3. In view of the aforementioned submissions, the RP had rejected the entire claim amount of ₹ 3,09,45,200 submitted by Mr. P Jayagovind. Detailed calculation notes on the eligible claim amount Claim no. PVS/D/406 Name: P Jayagovind Breakup of claim submitted Amount (Rs) a. Salary from August 2017 to April 2019 (₹ 12,05,000 less pf 1800 x 21 months) 2,52,67,200 b. Privilege leave (90 days) 36,15,000 c. Employer and employee PF 63,000 d. Gratuity for 22 years 20,00,000 Total claim 3,09,45,200 Recomputed eligible claim amount (as per books) Amount (Rs) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
