TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "the respondent" or "corporate debtor") by invoking the provisions of sections 8 & 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called as "Code") read with Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. The petitioner herein was an employee of the respondent and had started working initially as a consultant and later engaged as a full-time employee with the respondent. The petitioner was duly appointed with the respondent vide an Employee Agreement dated 01.04.2016. This agreement was entered into between the petitioner and Rainmaker Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. whose name was changed to Mylaw Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 10.08.2016. 3. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter head claiming to be acting on the instructions of the respondent accompanied with credit of payment of one month's salary after deduction of TDS and PF contributions (RS. 1,21,340) in lieu of notice period in the salary bank account of the petitioner through internet banking fund transfer. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a demand notice dated 13.04.2018 as per Section 8 of the Code demanding the operational debt of Rs. 22,69,127/-. The petitioner submitted the respondent replied to this notice on 23.04.2018 wherein the it has raised frivolous and illusionary dispute, without any documents/records to substantiate the same and that this dispute has been raised by the respondent for the first time and therefore, is a fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was always willing to amicably settle the issues with the petitioner which has also been submitted before this Tribunal. The petitioner had even accepted this offer, and expressed his intent to formalize the settlement vide a written agreement. Various emails were exchanged between the parties in this regard, and the respondent had tendered a cheque for INR 20,19,970/- to the petitioner on 15.07.2019 during the course of the hearing. However, subsequently, the Applicant refused to accept the cheque and enter into any agreement with the respondent, and for this reason the settlement talks did not materialize. The respondent has annexed a copy of this cheque for the principal amount of the petitioner's claim, which was offered by the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 11. The respondent submitted that it is the petitioner who has consistently refused to enter into settlement, and end the lis between the parties right from the start and even before this Tribunal. The Respondent company only wishes to bring an end to the litigation, in the interest of its continuing viable business, and end the lis inter se between the parties, vide a formalized settlement agreement. In these circumstances, the respondent prayed that this Tribunal should reject the present application and not allow the future of the Respondent company to be jeopardized because of the mala fide actions of the petitioner. FINDINGS 12. We have heard both the parties at length. We hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efault on the part of the respondent, we believe that it is not the respondent who is responsible for filing or the pendency of this petition. The respondent has time and again stated that he is willing to pay the principal amount only as the amount of interest has not been mentioned in the agreement. Here, we believe that it is pertinent to take into consideration the financial position of the respondent and the repercussions if the respondent company is admitted into CIRP more so for a small claim of 22 and odd lakhs. There has been no argument/document shown by the petitioner to prove that the respondent company is not financially sound and therefore, should be admitted into CIRP. The objective of the Code is very clear to aid resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cern. That, keeping in mind the basic objective of the IB Code as also considering the fact that the respondent company is a going company and initiation of insolvency process will adversely affect livelihood of number of employees and their family, in the interest of natural justice, the Adjudicating Authority cannot admit the application preferred by the appellant company." 16. That further, we would like to refer to the Order in the matter of SBF Pharma v. Gujarat Liqui Pharmacaps Pvt. Ltd.- MANU/NC/3404/2019 passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad wherein it rejected the application for insolvency and held that the IBC Code prohibits and discourages recovery in several ways. This order was subsequently affirmed by the National Company....