9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 'I B Code' and the Regulations. The submission of the Learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that the Liquidator was required to look into the documents and come to the 'best estimate' and give the benefit to the Appellants - Moreover, on verification of the documents such as Form 16, 26AS issued by the Income Tax Department as also the Appointment Order and the salary particulars produced by the Appellants, it is evident that they were working under the Corporate Debtor from various years from 2014 onwards and their income tax TDS has been deducted by the Corporate Debtor. The Liquidator is directed to take steps to process the claims of the Appellants and arrive at best estimate of the amount of claim made by the Appellants and give the necessary benefit to the Appellant in the form of a speaking order considering all the documents produced and the averments made in these Appeals - appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (KOB)/2022 OB)/2022 in IBA/38/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2022 - Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (J) And Anil Kumar B., Member (T) For the Appellant : Terry V. James and Lilin Lal, Advocates For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger of M/s. Albanna Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. The appellant stated that pursuant to the Public Announcement, the Appellant submitted his Claim under Regulation 19 to the Respondent for Rs. 27,12,000/- in Form B dated 05.01.2022, vide e-mail dated 06.01.2022, along with documents to prove his Claim such as the Contract of Employment, Certificate of Receivables, Salary Slip etc. 7. The Respondent, however, rejected the claim of the Appellant by Order/e-mail dated 06.01.2022 stating that no supporting documents to substantiate the Claim has been produced by the Appellant. 8. The Appellant thereafter Vide e-mail dated 12.1.2022 requested the Respondent to look into the documents submitted along with the Claim. The Respondent again replied to the same vide e-mail dated 12.1.2022 stating that the matter has already been discussed with you in detail . 9. The Appellant's stated that his salary was Rs. 97,250/- per month. He was therefore an exempted employee under the Provident Fund Act and the ESI Act and therefore could not be registered under the EPF Act or the ESI Act. The Appellant who was working as a Finance Accounts Manager was not a workman and cannot approach t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an exempted employee under the Provident Fund Act and the ESI Act and therefore could not be registered under the EPF Act or the ESI Act. The Appellant who was working as the Public Relations Officer is not a workman and cannot approach the DLO or Labour Court. The Appellant has produced the Form 26AS Statement issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2016-17 to show that he has received the Income from the Company. Company Appeal/4/KOB/2022: 16. The Appellant was the Electric Engineer of M/s. Albanna Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. He has stated that pursuant to the Public Announcement, he had submitted his Claim under Regulation 19 to the Respondent for Rs. 1,15,758/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand seven hundred and fifty eight) in Form E dated 05.01.2022, vide e-mail dated 06.01.2022 along with necessary documents have been to prove his claim such as the Employment letter, Certificate of Receivables, Pay Slip, Increment Intimation, Experience Certificate etc. 17. The Respondent, however, rejected the claim of the Appellant by Order/e-mail dated 12.01.2022 stating that no supporting documents provided to substantiate the Claim of the Appellant. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffers from non-application of mind because all the supporting documents were produced along with the claim and he has submitted his claim during the CIR process itself. 23. The Appellant's salary was Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) per month. He was therefore an exempted employee under the Provident Fund Act and the ESI Act and, therefore, could not be registered under the EPF Act or the ESI Act. 24. The Appellant who was working as the Chief Operations Coordinator is not a workman and cannot approach the DLO or Labour Court. The Appellant has produced the Form 26AS Statement issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2016-17 2017 to show that he has received the Income from the Company. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per Regulation 19(4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, the Respondent may admit the claim of an employee on the basis of books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor even if the employee has not made a claim. This is the manner in which a Liquidator should consider claims of the employees whereas, the Respondent has chosen to ignore the documents filed along with the Claim and rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany of the CD. A document issued by a related party to the Corporate Debtor cannot be accepted for the best interests of liquidation. Moreover, all the documents produced were executed during the time of Liquidation. Therefore, those documents cannot be accepted as the same are not valid documents under law. 30. The learned counsel further argued that in the instant case, the Corporate Debtor has not handed over any documents to the Liquidator, at any point of time. In the absence of supportive documents to check the veracity of the claims, the claim made by the applicants cannot be allowed. Rejoinder by appellants: 31. The appellants in their rejoinder stated that if the Respondent does not have access to books of accounts and documents of the Company, there is no explanation of the Respondent as to how he admitted similar claims of other creditors such as Brothers Engineering-Rs. 2.83 crores, M.N.B. Nair-Rs. 3.08 Crore, Coral Engineering-Rs. 95 Lakh, K.S. Rajendran-Rs. 1.2 Crore etc. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the burden cannot be cast on employees to obtain books of accounts and documents from the Company. The Respondent's contention that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Appellant were required to prove its claim inter alia on the basis of relevant documents which adequately establish their claim. Under Regulation 23, the Liquidator has the power and duty to call for such other evidence or clarification as he deems fit from a claimant for substantiating the whole or part of its claim. Regulation 25 may be reproduced which reads as under:- 25. Determination of quantum of claim. - Where the amount claimed by a claimant is not precise due to any contingency or any other reason, the liquidator shall make the best estimate of the amount of the claim based on the information available with him. 36. The substance is that there are sufficient provisions that require the Liquidator to take steps with regard to the claims received by him. When certain documents are produced by the appellants, it was inappropriate on the part of the Liquidator to inform the Appellant in the e-mail dated 06.01.2022 (CA/1/KOB/2022), 19.01.2022 (CA/2/KOB/2022), 12.01.2022 (CA/3/KOB/2022), 12.01.2022 (CA/4/KOB/2022), 06.01.2022 (CA/5/KOB/2022), 25.02.2020 (CA/6/KOB/2022) that too immediately within hours without verifying the veracity of the documents, that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
