TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(IB) No.237/9//HDB/2019 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench). 2. The 'Adjudicating Authority' while passing the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 in CP(IB)No.237/9/HDB/2019 (Filed by the 1st Respondent/ Applicant/Operation Creditor under Section 9 of the Code r/w Rule 6 of I&B (AAA), Rules 2016) at paragraph 39 to 43 had observed the following:- "39. In the present case the Operational Creditor is able to demonstrate by way of several communications that there was a contract of employment, whether disputed or undisputed and there is breach thereof. Latest of such communications is e-mail dated 27.09.2016 (page 81 of the petition) addressed by M. Srinivasulu Reddy, Director to the Corporate Debtor. The relevant para reproduced below: "I will have to discuss the points you have raised especially, the part of compensation in cash, tax implications of sweat equity vs ESOP, exit options, etc, with the company CA and CS and other promoters and see how best we can get to a mutually agreeable solution. Like I said earlier, we have agreed to compensate you 75 crores rupees for your work and contribution made in the last 6 and half years.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary directions. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS: 3. Challenging the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 (Filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant/ Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the I&B Code in Form 5, under Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016) passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench), the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) without taking into account several material facts, which clearly established that the 'Debt' alleged by the 1st Respondent/Operational Creditor was clearly a 'Disputed Debt' and hence, could not be the basis of admission of an 'Application' under Section 9 of the Code, 2016. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the 'Adjudicating Authority' had failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st Respondent/Applicant/Operational Creditor had forged the signatures and created/fabricated the documents, to establish a 'Debt' when no 'Debt' is owed by the Corporate Debtor to the 1st Respondent/Operational Creditor/A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to allot shares for Rs. 7.50 crores. 12. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the 'Adjudicating Authority' had failed to take note of the fact that even as per the 1st Respondent, the question of allotment of shares worth Rs. 7.5 crores only arises, when the 'Authorised' capital of the 'Corporate Debtor' was raised to 150 crores, which admittedly was not done, in the facts of the present case. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant forcefully points out that there is no default in the present case and as such, the application under Section 9 of the Code is a premature one. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant advances an argument that the 1st Respondent/Applicant is deemed to have had a 'Constructive Notice', in respect of the 'Annual Reports', 'Articles of Association' and 'Memorandum of Association' of the 'Corporate Debtor'. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 'Adjudicating Authority' had acted like a 'Civil Court' seeking to decide substantial questions of 'Fraud and Forgery' in a 'Summary Proceedings' thereby, exceeded its 'Jurisdiction'. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the 'Adjudicating Authority' acted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence Act, 1872. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', (NCLT Hyderabad Bench) in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. APPELLANT'S CITATIONS 26. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the judgement of this Tribunal in M. Ravindranath Reddy V. Mr G. Kishan and others (Vide Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.331/2019) to point out that the 'satisfaction is sine qua non' for treating any 'Debt' as an 'Operational Debt' under the I&B Code. 27. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adverts to the judgement of this 'Tribunal' in Abhijeet Guhathakurta V Royale Partners Investment Fund Ltd (Vide Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.287/2020). 28. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vashdeo Bhojwani V. Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd (Vide Civil Appeal No.11020 of 2018) to submit that Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is inapplicable to the proceedings under Section 7 and 9 of the Code. 29. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the order of this 'Tribunal' in Sanjeev Kumar V. Aithent Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck Options. 3.Of the total amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-, shares for Rs. 3,75,00,000/- will be issued in FY 2016-2017 and shares for Rs. 3,75,00,000/- will be issued in FY 2017-2018. 4.You will be inducted as Full time Director of the Company with designated responsibilities. The salary and perks will be commensurate with other full time Directors of the Company. 5.The monthly salary and perks will be paid from the month of October, 2016. Salary for the months of August and September 2016 shall be paid in the month of October, 2016. 6.The above compensation package will be discussed by the Board Members with the Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary and appropriate Board Resolutions will be passed by 15.09.2016 I once again, would like to let you know that we truly appreciate all work you have done for M/s Teja Cement Limited in the past and I hope that you will continue to be associated with us in the future." 34. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent takes a plea that there was no progress, even post August, 2016 and hence, the 1st Respondent through 'Email' dated 26.09.2016 had requested the Appellant to finalise the details of the compensation package to be p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, by the 'Adjudicating Authority' and 'CIRP' was ordered against the Company. 39. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that the 'Application/Petition' in CP(IB)No.237/9/HDB/2019 filed before the 'Adjudicating Authority' by the 1st Respondent/Applicant/ Operational Creditor is well within 'Limitation Period' and that the Company had addressed a letter to the 1st Respondent/Applicant on 25.07.2011, conveying their decision, to offer the 1st Respondent/Applicant a position on the 'Board of the Company', with a monthly salary of Rs. 5 lakh and further, it was stated that a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- would be paid through shares of the 'Company', for the period beginning from April, 2010 to July 2011. 40. According to the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/ Applicant, the 'Company' wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent, on 29.01.2015 stating that the 1st Respondent would be entitled to a total remuneration of Rs. 5,28,24,000/- from 1.04.2010 till 31.03.2015 and that the said amount would be paid through shares of Company and that the 1st Respondent would be paid a salary of Rs. 6 lakhs per month, from 01.04.2015. Also that, the Company had conveyed to the 1st Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from 01.04.2010. Furthermore, the 'Company' in its reply had admitted before the 'Tribunal' that the credentials of [email protected] and the 'Letter Heads' were handed over to the 1st Respondent. 46. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that in various correspondences address by the other 'Companies' as early as in year 2010, the name of the 1st Respondent was mentioned, thereby establishing the fact that the transactions and communications of the 1st Respondent/Applicant/Operational Creditor are 'genuine' and in the course of 'normal business' and they were not forged or fabricated. 47. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that the claim of 'outstanding salary' due to the 1st Respondent/Applicant comes within the definition of 'Operational Debt' as per decisions in (1) Suyresh Narayan Singh, reported in MANU/NL/0238/2018(NCLAT) (2) Kriti Paul Gera v. Devang Holdings, MANU/NC/5483/2018 (NCLT, Delhi). 48. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent comes out with an argument that the 1st Respondent/Applicant had offered 'services' to the 'Corporate Debtor', which is established from the Appellant's documents. In fact, there is a promise to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2010) 13 SCC (308). 55. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that the 'instant demand' is based on compensation for the 'Services' rendered and not for any demand for repayment share capital money. Continuing further, it is the stand of the 1st Respondent that the pendency of 'protest Petition' to the closure under the Criminal Procedure Code, does not amount to a 'dispute proceeding' between the parties. FIRST RESPONDENT'S CITATIONS: 56. The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant cites the Judgment of this 'Tribunal' dated 21.07.2017 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2017 in 'Aurosagar Estates Private Limited & Ors. v. M.C. Davar Holdings Private Limited', reported in Manu/NL/0042/2017 for the proposition that under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013, the 'National Company Law Tribunal' has powers, similar to that of a 'Civil Court' as mentioned in Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. 57. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent refers to the judgment of this 'Tribunal' 26.09.2018 in 'Suresh Narayan Singh v. Tayo Rolls Limited'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational Debt" means a claim in respect of the a provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority; Operator creditor has also been defined at section 5(2) as follows: "Operation Creditor" means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred'. 59. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 308 at spl. Page 336 wherein at paragraphs 51 to 53 it is observed and held as under: 51 Even fraudulent trading carried on by the Corporate Debtor during the insolvency resolution, can be inquired into by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 66. Section 69 makes an officer of the corporate debtor and the corporate debtor liable for punishment, for carrying on transactions with a view to defraud creditors. Therefore, NCLT is vested with the power to inquire into (i) fraudulen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PROVISION OF LAW, CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT UNDER WHICH OPERATIONAL DEBT HAS BECOME DUE Letters addressed by the Managing Director on behalf of the Company. REPLY OF CORPORATE DEBTOR 62. Before the Adjudicating Authority, the Corporate Debtor (M/s. Teja Cement Ltd.) had filed a Reply inter alia stating that the 'Corporate Debtor' was in the process of obtaining numerous permissions and approvals for the establishment of a cement factory and was also procuring lands for the same and that in the year 2010, the First Respondent / Applicant had approached the Appellant / one of the Directors and stated that he was keen and interested to invest in the cement factory being established by the Corporate Debtor. Further, as the Corporate Debtor was still under the process of securing all clearances / approvals from the necessary authorities, the Appellant / Director of the Company had informed the First Respondent / Applicant that investments in the company can be made at the time of procuring land parcels for the Company or at the time of actual establishment of the cement factory etc. 63. In fact, according to the Appellant, the First Respondent / Applicant had offered to help the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Company. Apart from this, only upon the First Respondent/Applicant making substantial investments into the Company, the issue of allotment of shares or offering the First Respondent/Applicant about the Directorship of the 'Company' will arise. 67. It is the version of the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority that the Company was consulting Mr. Om Prakash Jagetiya who earlier worked in senior positions for the ACC cements and Zuari Cements, who has high reputation in the cement industry, for the purpose of co-ordinating with various officials and guidance for procuring numerous approvals from different bodies. Indeed, the First Respondent/Applicant was co-ordinating with the Appellant, was taking instructions from Mr. Om Prakash Jagetiya for the purpose of addressing communications. The said Om Prakash Jagetiya had also travelled with the Appellant on many occasions for meeting the various officials in regard to the process of securing approval/licences. 68. According to the Appellant in the year 2016 the First Respondent/Applicant for the first time had demanded the Appellant that he be appointed as a Director of the Company and his salary to be fixed for his pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, all such emails and letters being relied upon by the 1st Respondent/Applicant to prove an alleged 'operational debt' against the company are being investigated by the Police under FIR No.04 of 2018, filed by the Appellant. 73. It is projected on the side of the Appellant that according to the Email dated 29.1.2015 and 28.8.2016 and the emails dated 10.8.2016, 26.9.2016, 27.9.2016 and 19.4.2017, the 1st Respondent/applicant had agreed to the alleged proposal of the Appellant, for allotment of sweat equity shares in the company, instead of payment of money to the 1st Respondent/Applicant. Therefore, according to the Appellant, the 1st Respondent/Applicant cannot now claim any sum from the company. The claim of the 1st Respondent/Applicant is barred by limitation and that it is the plea of the 1st Respondent/Applicant that the Company had employed him from April, 2010 onwards under promise to pay the amount, as is being claimed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant. The Application filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant under Section 9 of the Code in respect of an alleged 'operational debt' is not maintainable and also it is barred by Limitation. 74. The 'Corporate Debtor' came o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 and that the salary for the month of August and September, 2016 shall be paid in October, 2016. 77. In the instant case, it is brought to the fore that the application in CP(IB)No.237/9/HDB/2019 was filed before the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 29.03.2019. From the date of issuance of 'Demand Notice' on 05.12.2018 and filing of the application in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 before the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 29.03.2019, the same being within the three years limitation period. In this connection, this Tribunal relevantly points out that the Reply of the Director of the Corporate Debtor dated 27.09.2016 addressed to the 1st Respondent/Applicant shows that the 1st Respondent/Applicant had played an invaluable part in the Company and it was also mentioned that the Company had agreed to compensate him 7.5 crores Rupees for the work and contribution made by him in the last six and half years and moreover, the 1st Respondent/Applicant was required to continue to work with the same diligence and zeal and that the 'Teja Cements Ltd' needs his services now more than ever. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 78. It is to be pointed out that an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' due by the 'Appellant', it is crystalline clear that the right to sue for the sum accrued in favour of the 1st Respondent/Applicant and viewed in that perspective the filing of the Application by the 1st Respondent/Applicant in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 before the 'Adjudicating Authority' is clearly within the three years Limitation period and this 'Tribunal' unhesitatingly comes to consequent conclusion that the 'Application' in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019, on the file of the 'Adjudicating Authority', is not barred by limitation and the point is answered accordingly. 82. It is to be pointed out that the Company's letter dated 25.07.2011 points out that the 1st Respondent/Applicant continued to work with the Company and he took care of its affairs in regard the Plant at Hyderabad, from 01.04.2010. In fact, the 1st Respondent/Applicant was offered a position on the Board of the Company by the Company, with a salary of Rs. 5 lakhs per month. Further, a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs would be paid through shares of the company for the work rendered by the 1st Respondent/Applicant for the period from the April, 2010 to July, 2011 (vide letter of the Company addressed to the 1st Respondent/Applican....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In regard to the criminal complaint given by the 'Corporate Debtor' against the 1st Respondent/Applicant which got registered as First Information Report No.04/2018 dated 21.12.2018 before the CID, TS, Hyderabad Police Station was investigated and a 'Final Report' was given to the effect that '.........as such the allegations against I.V. Nanda Gopal (1st Respondent/Applicant) are not established with clinching evidences' and that the 'case' was closed as undetectable and that an approval of the Final Report was sought for and necessary proceedings be issued. 87. Not resting with the above, the Corporate Debtor was constrained to file criminal MP No.162/2021 on the file of Court of VIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (vide Crime No.4/2018 (CID Hyderabad) in which interim order was not passed. It cannot be forgotten that when the plea of forgery was negatived, as evident from requisite authority, the contra plea taken on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor' in regard to forgery is unworthy of acceptance by this Tribunal. 88. Moreover, the findings in the 'Closure Report' unerringly shows that the email ID [email protected] was in Appellant's control and all the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices including employment or a debt in respect of the (payment) of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority. 93. Bearing in mind of the fact that in present case, there are several communications indicating that there was a contract of employment and in fact the 1st Respondent/Applicant's claim made in the Application in CP(IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 before the Adjudicating Authority comes squarely within the definition of Claim as per Section 3(6) of the Code which runs to the following effect:- Section 3(6) - "claim" means- (a) a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgement, fixed, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured; (b) right to remedy for breach of contract under any law for the time being in force, if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured. DISPUTE 94. To be noted, a 'Dispute' will not mean 'just a denial' so to say that 'there is no payment due', because of the 'Dispute'. If the ingredient of Section 8 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst Respondent/Applicant a sum of Rs. 7.5 crores for the contribution and work he had performed. 98. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid qualitative and quantitative discussions, this 'Tribunal' keeping in mind the surrounding facts and circumstances in the instant case comes to an inevitable, irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the 'Adjudicating Authority', National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad had rightly admitted the application in CP (IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 by passing the impugned order on 04.01.2022 and the same does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. Consequently, the Appeal fails. RESULT In fine, the instant COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(CH)(INS) No.29 of 2022 is dismissed. No Costs. The 'Interim Order' granted earlier by this 'Tribunal' shall stand vacated. IA No. 57/2022 is closed. (Justice M. Venugopal) Member(Judicial) 21st March, 2022 Per: KANTHI NARAHARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) I have perused the Judgment passed by my learned brother and I agree other issues. However, on the aspect of limitation I am differing and taking separate view as under: Preamble: The Present Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing substantial investments in the Corporate Debtor and at the time of such investments he was to be offered shares and directorship of the Corporate Debtor depending upon the investments being made by him but not under any other circumstances. Since no investment has been made the question of allotment of any shares or the directorship in the Corporate Debtor did not arise. 7. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the year 2016 the first Respondent had for the first time demanded the Appellant that he be appointed as a Director of the Corporate Debtor and his salary to be fixed for his proposed employment with the Corporate Debtor as a Director. However, the Appellant declined the same and never promised any employment with the Corporate Debtor. However, the first Respondent changed the login credentials of the e-mail account that was created by the Corporate Debtor and has not handed over the letter heads and other materials pertaining to the Corporate Debtor and started using another e-mail address viz [email protected] from July, 2016 onwards for the purpose of handling all e-mail correspondence on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. 8. It is submitted that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has employed him is false and concocted. The first Respondent failed to produce the income tax returns to show that he is under employment of the Corporate Debtor. 14. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Application itself is barred by limitation and Learned Adjudicating Authority ought not to have admitted the Application. The Corporate Debtor filed a detailed Reply before the Adjudicating Authority setting out various defences viz that the entire documentation for the alleged liability is forged fabricated. The Corporate Debtor had no employees however the contention of the first Respondent that he was an employee and a de facto Director runs contrary to several document. In view of factual disputes and discrepancies which clearly constitute a dispute for the purpose of I & B, Code and an Application under Section 9 cannot be admitted. Non-allotment of shares cannot be a claim under the code and does not constitute a debt, let alone an Operational debt under the tenants of the Code. 15. As stated supra the claim is barred by limitation as the date of default as per the Application is 25.07.2011, whereas the first acknowledgment is 29.01.2015 i.e. much after 3 years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occupied with other business affairs at yerraguntla. 22. It is submitted that the first Respondent commenced his work on 01.04.2010 on consultancy basis for the Company and was actively involved in affairs of the Company. The Company vide its letter dated 25.07.2011 offered this Respondent a position on the board of the Company with a monthly salary of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The remuneration as promised never paid to the Respondent from 2010-2015. On 29.01.2015 the Company addressed a letter that he would be entitled to a total remuneration of Rs. 5,28,24,000/- from 01.04.2010 till 31.03.2015 which would be paid through shares of Company and he would be paid a monthly salary of Rs. 6,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Thus, the first Respondent is entitled to Rs. 7.5 Crores as sweat equity shares in the form of remuneration and in that regard a detailed letter was also issued by the Company on 28.08.2016. 23. It is submitted that the Appellant admitted vide e-mail dated 27.09.2016 to compensate this Respondent with Rs. 7.5 Crores for the Work done since April, 2010 but failed to make any payments. This Respondent decided to exit the Company in January, 2017, however, the Appellant promised to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by this Respondent sufficiently establish that the transactions and communications are genuine and in the course of normal business and not forged or fabricated. Even the CID Report are clear to prove that the documents were not forged and the e-mail id [email protected] was in the exclusive control of the Appellant. It is submitted that the IBC, 2016 being a complete code in itself and the Adjudicating Authority as per Section 5 (1) of IBC being the NCLT has powers under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 akin to that of a Civil Procedure Code as prescribed under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even the questions of fraud also can be enquired into by the NCLT as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Embassy Property Development vs. State of Karnataka (2020 13 SCC 308)'. It is submitted that in any event as on date of demand notice dated 05.12.2018 there were no criminal cases filed it was only an after-thought the Appellant filed a criminal complaint on 21.12.2018. Therefore, the Appellant cannot take the advantage stating that there have been pre-existing dispute. 27. It is submitted that the claim of this Respondent is an Operational debt and not for allotment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to a letter dated 29.01.2015 wherein the content of the letter stated to be that the remuneration payable to the Applicant for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.05.2015 was Rs. 5,28,24,000/-. Further, the Adjudicating Authority at paragraph (C) quoted a letter dated 28.08.2016 wherein the contents of the said letter is that the first Respondent will receive a remuneration of Rs. 7.5 Crores for the work rendered by the first Respondent from 01.04.2010 to 31.07.2016 through shares of the Corporate Debtor at Rs. 10 per share. It is also stated in the letter that the shares will be issued to the first Respondent as a combination of sweat equity and Employee Stock Options. (iii) Having taken the above letters for the purpose of deciding the issue that the first Respondent rendered services to the Corporate Debtor however, omitted the dates on which the purported letters issued by the Corporate Debtor. When the Adjudicating Authority relying upon the contents of the letter, it should have also taken into consideration the dates on which the letters have been issued for the purpose of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority cannot omit the same and take the dates i.e. the dates subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor admitted to issue shares for Rs. 80,00,000/- towards remuneration for the work rendered from 01.04.2010 to 31.07.2011 and a monthly salary of Rs. 5,00,000/- from August, 2011. According to the first Respondent the Corporate Debtor issued first letter dated 25.07.2011 to state that the first Respondent became an integral part of Teja Cement Limited from 01.04.2010 onwards and decided to offer a position on the Board of Directors of Teja Cement Limited with a monthly salary of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other fringe benefits commensurate to his position. Further, in the letter it is also stated that an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- will be paid through shares of Teja Cement Limited for the work that has already been rendered and contributed from April, 2010 to July, 2011. It is also stated that the shares will be allotted on or before 31.03.2012. (viii) For all the purposes the purported letter dated 25.07.2011 is to be treated as date of default and three years to be taken into account which gives the limitation period up to 24.07.2014. However, the first Respondent relying upon the letter dated 29.01.2015 to show that the Corporate Debtor purportedly issued that letter wherein a refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with interest @ 18%(eighteen percent) p.a. till the date of realisation of entire payment. 10. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of IBC stipulates: "8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor- (1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of the unpaid operational debt or a copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed." 11. Under Section 9(1), the operation creditor may file an application before the adjudicating authority for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process ("CIRP"), after the expiry of a period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice (or invoice demanding payment) under sub-section (!) of Section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or a notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 8. The appellant having specified 30.04.2020 as the date of default, this appeal must proceed on that basis. It is necessary to make this clear at the outset because an attempt has been made during the course of the submissions by Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learne....