2023 (12) TMI 1369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter 'the Companies Act'). 2. The appellant is an ex-employee of the respondent company and had sought winding up of the respondent, principally, on the ground that it had failed to pay his admitted dues. 3. The appellant had joined the respondent company on 01.06.2007 as Chief Executive Officer in terms of an appointment letter dated 30.03.2007. The appellant alleged that the respondent had stopped giving him salary from September 2008 onwards, on the ground that it was suffering losses. However, the appellant was assured that his remuneration would be paid and he continued to work with the respondent on the basis of the said assurance. Since the appellant's salary was not paid during the follow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Arjun (Hindi) as well as the Delhi Gazette. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator to take further steps in accordance with law. However, the learned Company Court kept the said order dated 12.11.2018 in abeyance to enable the respondent to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 15,96,164/- along with 6% simple interest with effect from 09.03.2009. It was further directed that in the event, the said payment was made within a period of four weeks from the said date, the order appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator of the respondent, will stand discharged. 8. Insofar as the other amounts as claimed by the appellant are concerned, the learned Company Court found that the same were not admitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laced on record nor the amounts paid by the respondent are disputed. She also handed over an income tax demand raised, which indicates that a demand of Rs. 56,65,080/- has been raised by the Income tax Authorities. 13. In addition, she also submitted that the appointment letter clearly indicated that the signing bonus was to be paid at the time of the appellant joining the employment of the respondent but the said amount was also not paid. 14. Insofar as the deduction of the TDS is concerned, this Court finds merit in the appellant's contention. If the respondent had deducted TDS, it was obliged under law to deposit the same. The failure to deposit the same would not only render the respondent vulnerable to proceedings under the Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded in the admitted dues. 18. It is the respondent's case that, in fact, it had deposited a sum of Rs. 37,17,202/- in respect of Previous Year ending 31.03.2009 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The respondent also claims that the said amount was deposited within the prescribed period and therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the same. It is contended that any issue in this regard is a matter of reconciliation between the appellant, the respondent and the concerned authorities. 19. On 24.11.2023, the respondent had made a statement that although, it had deposited the TDS as required, the deposit was not reflected in the appellant's account because of an error in the Permanent Account Number (PAN), which woul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent submits that a sum of Rs. 2,62,800/- was required to be deposited as PF in terms of the salary slips placed on record. The difference between the amount claimed by the appellant and the respondent pertains to the month of December 2008. According to Mr Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant has also included PF amount in respect of the month of December 2008 but there is no salary slips for the said period. He submits that this is because the appellant had resigned from the employment on 16.12.2008 and had stopped working thereafter. 23. It is clear that there is no dispute as to the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,62,800/-. The learned counsel for the respondent states that this amount would be paid along ....