TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 in (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 fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y declaring moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the Code and issued necessary 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solution which was produced by the 1st Respondent/applicant which actually permits the Appellant, to have agreed 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor' and the same could not have been considered, without following 'due procedure', established under Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence 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 proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Calculation sheets for arriving at the above amount is annexed to this letter. 2.The shares will be issued to you as a combination of Sweat Equity and Employees Stock 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 ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led an 'Application' in CP(IB) NO.237/9/HDB/2019 (under Section 9 of the Code, before the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) and the said 'Application' was admitted by on 04.01.2022, 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 31.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1st Respondent contends that the Letter of the 'Company' dated 25.07.2011 indicates that the 1st Respondent/Applicant, continued to work with the 'Company' and was taking care of its affairs in regard to the Plant at Hyderabad right 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt' on 21.12.2018, which could not be taken advantage based on the plea that there were 'pre-existing' disputes. 54. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that the 'Questions of Fraud' can be enquired to by the 'Adjudicating Authority' 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 Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Judgment of this 'Tribunal' dated 03.05.2018 in "Kriti Paul Gera v. Devang Holdings (P) Ltd." reported in Manu/NC/5483/2018 wherein at paragraphs 10 to 12 it is observed as under: 10. "The "Operational debt" has been defined under Section 5(21) of the Code as follows: "Operational 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 inso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE WORKINGS FOR COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT AND DATES OF DEFAULT IN TABULAR FORM) Rs. 7,50,00,000/- 25th July 2011 61. The 1st Respondent/Applicant in the Application under Part V Column 'Particulars of Operational Debt (Documents, Records and Evidence of Default) at Sl.No.6 had observed the following: 6. 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 nece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....representation of the First Respondent / Applicant, the said amount was returned to him who had not re-invested the same into the Company. 66. According to the Appellant, none of the Directors / Promoter and authorised representatives of the Corporate Debtor (including the Appellant) had ever promised or undertook to take the First Respondent/Applicant under employment of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant to the 1st Respondent/applicant, in its alleged emails dated 10.8.2016 and 26.9.2016 and also the purportedly email dated 27.09.2016, allegedly addressed by the Appellant. 72. The 1st Respondent/Applicant is seeking to misuse the provisions of the I&B Code, for his illegal gain and that no claim arises against the 'Corporate Debtor', which can be sustained in any Court of Law. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the letter dated 28.08.2016 addressed by the Director of the Corporate Debtor to the 1st Respondent/Applicant in Serial No.4 it was mentioned that he would be inducted as Full Time Director of the Company with designated responsibilities and in Serial No.5 of the said letter it was mentioned that 1st Respondent/Applicant would be paid the monthly salary and perk from the month of October, 2016 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 co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation Act will include an omission as per decision Kedarnath V. Har Govind reported in AIR 1926 Allahabad page 605 at page 609. 81. This 'Tribunal' taking note of the fact that the 'Demand Notice' was issued by the 1st Respondent/Applicant on 05.12.2018, considering the letters and emails communication filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant and that on 27.09.2016, there is 'an admission of outstanding sum' 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 Hyde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ja Cement Limited for over 4 years and is actively involved in all aspects of the company." and the aforesaid statement was mentioned by the 'Corporate Debtor' in its 'Economic Feasibility Report' pertaining to the setting up of Cement Plant by the Company. Therefore, the 'Techno Economic Feasibility Report' is clearly in favour of the 1st Respondent/Applicant that he was in employment of the Company from the year 2011. 86. 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offered with an employment in the 'Corporate Debtor/Company' (notwithstanding the fact that his status was not clearly described), the claim of the 1st Respondent/Applicant in CP (IB) No.237/9/HDB/2019 before the 'Adjudicating Authority' is that of the 'Operational Creditor' as per Section 5(21) of the Code which proceeds to the following effect:- Section 5(21) - "Operational debt" means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services 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, equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttended the meetings from the year 2010 through number of e.mails, letters and other documents and the services rendered by the 1st Respondent/Applicant squarely falls within the parameters of the definition of 'Operational Debt', as per Section 5(21) of the I&B Code, 2016. The e.mail communication addressed by the Appellant, directed the 'Corporate Debtor' indicates that the First Respondent's contribution to the Company for six and half years and that the Company had agreed to compensate the First 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 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hyderabad, had offered to help the Corporate Debtor in all its official Communications letters being addressed to the Registered Office to the Corporate Debtor and the e-mails correspondence with the Officials. The Appellant reposing utmost faith and trust on the first Respondent handed over the login details of the Corporate Debtor's e-mail account; [email protected] which was being used for all official communications on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. 6. It is submitted that the first Respondent was keen on making 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. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting up the present claim against the Corporate Debtor. 13. It is submitted that neither the Corporate Debtor nor any of its Directors, Promoters have ever promised and/or undertaken to pay any amounts to the first Respondent. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Corporate Debtor has not employed any person till date which is evident from the annual financial statement of the Company. The first Respondent claims to have closely worked in the Corporate Debtor, however, he cannot after a lapse of 8 years claimed that the Corporate Debtor 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany. 20. In view of the reasons as stated above the Learned Senior Counsel prayed this Bench to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad). First Respondent's Submissions 21. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that this Respondent was introduced to the Appellant as a family friend in 1998 and in 2010 the Appellant requested this Respondent to help him with the establishment of a cement plant of Teja Cement Limited (Company) since he was 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 Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Company and represented the Company before various clients/persons and Government Authorities thereby strengthens the stand that their exist an employer and employee relationship since he was in the employment in the Corporate Debtor and had provided services which clearly comes within the definition of Operational Creditor and the outstanding salary due to him comes within the definition of Operational debt. 26. With regard to the allegation that the documents are forged fabricated is concerned it is submitted that all the communications of the Company sent 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of maintaining the application is completely contrary to the facts and law. (ii) The Adjudicating Authority in its order at paragraph 2 (A) stated that the Operational Creditor relied upon the documents purported to have been issued by the Respondent Company namely letter dated 25.07.2011 wherein the content of the letter stated to be that the first Respondent had started working with the Appellant Company from 01.04.2010 onwards and the Applicant was offered Rs. 5,00,000/- as monthly salary. Further at paragraph 2 (B) of the order, the Adjudicating Authority referred 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 fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application". (vi) Admittedly the first Respondent shown the date of default is 25.07.2011 and taking into consideration the three years period limitation which expires on 24.07.2014. For the purpose of continuation of limitation there must be acknowledgment before expiry of three years as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (vii) In the present case the first Respondent had not produced any acknowledgment prior to 24.07.2014. However, the first Respondent relied upon the letter dated 29.01.2015 to state that the Corporate 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 po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant in Form 3, which is prescribed under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to adjudicating authority) Rules, 2016. The statutory form provides for a disclosure of the particulars of the operational debt. The disclosure which has been made by the appellant includes the amount claimed in default and the date of default, as tabulated below: 2. Amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the default occurred [attach the workings for computation of-*default in tabular form] INR 104,28,76,479 (Indian Rupees one hundred and four crores, twenty-eight lakhs, seventy-six thousand, four hundred and seventy -nine only) as on 30.04.2020 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), t....