TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Gratuity and provident fund claim amounts held admitted and ordered paid, with 60-day refiling delay condoned</h1> Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in refiling: The Tribunal found sufficient cause for a 60-day delay in refiling and treated the application as ... Claim filed in the CIRP - workers impleaded as appellants - Gratuity entitlement - pay the gratuity and PF of the claims admitted in full - condonation of delay in refiling - HELD THAT:- This is an application praying for condonation of 60 days in refiling the application. We have already passed order in the application by which 73 workers have been impleaded as appellants, we find sufficient cause in the application, praying for condonation of delay in refiling of the application. Delay condone. It is clear that the amount which is admitted towards the gratuity has to be treated as the amount full admitted of the gratuity and we are of the view that this clarification is necessary to protect the amount of gratuity which SRA has already undertaken to pay in full. When the submitted claim and gratuity amount is already there, we are failed to see whey in the finally admitted claim word used are “claim missing” when the figures are already there the said total claim was entitled to be admitted and we treat the claim of item nos.70 to 73 as claim as reflected above to be treated to be admitted and needs to be dealt accordingly. Gratuity with reference to item nos. 70 to 73 also is to be paid in full as submitted by counsel for SRA. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to keep appeal pending with the clarification and modification as above the appeal is disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether 73 workers/applicants who had filed claims in the CIRP should be impleaded as appellants and permitted to prosecute the appeal; (ii) Whether delay in refiling the impleadment application should be condoned; (iii) Whether the claims of employees numbered 70 to 73 (as reflected in the claim table) should be treated as admitted and whether gratuity for those claims must be treated as fully admitted and payable by the SRA.Issue (i): Whether 73 applicants who had filed claims in the CIRP should be impleaded as appellants and permitted to prosecute the appeal.Analysis: The applicants had filed claims in the corporate insolvency resolution process and sought to prosecute the appeal in respect of those claims. Liberty to move for impleadment had been earlier granted. The materials show the applicants' claims were part of the claim record before the Resolution Professional and relate directly to the matters in the appeal.Conclusion: The 73 applicants are impleaded as appellants and are permitted to prosecute the appeal.Issue (ii): Whether the delay of 60 days in refiling the impleadment application should be condoned.Analysis: The application for condonation identifies sufficient cause, including explanations in the application, and follows the earlier liberty granted to file within time. The interest in allowing rightful claimants to participate in the appeal and the presence of relevant material justify condonation.Conclusion: The delay in refiling is condoned.Issue (iii): Whether the claims of employees numbered 70 to 73 as reflected in the claim table should be treated as admitted and whether gratuity for those claims must be treated as fully admitted and payable by the SRA.Analysis: The claim table submitted shows submitted claim amounts and gratuity figures for items 70–73, while the finally admitted column records 'Claim Missing' despite the figures being captured in earlier columns. The SRA has affirmed its undertaking to pay gratuity and provident fund for admitted claims in full. Clarification is required to ensure that admitted amounts include gratuity as indicated in the claim record and to protect the employees' entitlement.Conclusion: The claims of items 70 to 73, as reflected in the submitted claim table, are to be treated as admitted and gratuity for those claims is to be paid in full by the SRA.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of with implementation of the impleadment of the 73 applicants, condonation of the delay in refiling the impleadment application, and clarification that the specified employee claims are treated as admitted with gratuity payable in full by the SRA; the appeal proceeds subject to these modifications.Ratio Decidendi: Where claim particulars and gratuity figures are recorded in the CIRP claim materials and the SRA has undertaken to pay admitted gratuity, the recorded claim amounts must be treated as admitted for the purposes of prosecuting an appeal and the gratuity component must be preserved as payable in full.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
