9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENT R. F. Nariman , J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2019 1. I.A. No. 163654 of 2019 for intervention is dismissed. 2. The present appeal is filed by an erstwhile employee of the Corporate Debtor, i.e. the Respondent No.1 Company. The Appellant joined the Corporate Debtor as a Personal Assistant on 01.01.1983, and over the years received several promotions, including to Manager-Administration. His final designation before he left from service in 2013 was Public Relations Manager. 3. This appeal arises from an application that was made by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ["IBC"] dated 21.07.2017. In this application, the Appellant averred that a sum of Rs. 1.87 Crores was owed to him, being the arrears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not part of the claim of the Appellant. 4. The NCLT then referred to a Civil Suit that was filed on 06.07.2017 by the Corporate Debtor one week after the notice under Section 8 of the IBC was issued by the Appellant (i.e. on 29.06.2017). The suit contained the following prayers: "a) declaring the notice/letters dated 30.09.2006, 22.01.2013, 30.06.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.09.2014 alleged to have been issued by 1st defendant as null and void and will not bind the plaintiff, b) grant permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from relying on or claiming against the plaintiff based on the alleged letters/notices dated 30.09.2006, 22.01.2013, 30.06.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.09.2014." The NCLT went on to state that the suit was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay of about 18 years), we hold that the application under Section 9 preferred by the Respondent was not maintainable." 7. For these reasons, including the fact that according to the NCLAT, a dispute has been raised, the NCLAT held that the NCLT was incorrect in admitting the matter, and thus allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT order. 8. Mr. Rai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, has referred to three acknowledgements that are on record. The first is vide a letter dated 30.09.2006 acknowledging arrears of payment of salary from 01.01.2000 till the actual date the Appellant was relieved from service. The second is a letter dated 30.06.2013 stating that the "accounts will be settled" as the Appellant had now been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the NCLAT judgment, it ought to remit the same for hearing on whether the NCLT was correct on merits in admitting the Section 9 petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, what becomes clear is the fact that from the date of the last acknowledgement i.e. 30.09.2014 till the date on which the petition before the NCLT was filed i.e. 27.07.2017, three years have not elapsed. Therefore, at least to the extent of an acknowledgement made by the then Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, the arrears of salary due for a period of at least 3 years prior to 30.09.2014 would certainly be within limitation, and therefore payable to the Appellant. This being the case, it is clear that the NCLT judgment is correct in admitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
