Bank Of Baroda vs Ratan Singh & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1104 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order condones a 7-day delay in filing the appeal on being satisfied with the grounds shown, and the appeal is then dismissed on the merits. The only reasoning the Tribunal gives is that, on the facts before it, an employee's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution was not shown to be made with malicious intent or in collusion with the corporate debtor, the bank having itself declared the account a non-performing asset which explained non-payment of the employee's dues.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
22.10.2019 Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and being
satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 7 days in preferring the appeal is
condoned.
I.A. No. 3287 of 2019 stands disposed of.
Mr. Ratan Singh, an employee filed an application under Section 9 of the
'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (for short, 'the I&B Code') for initiation
of 'corporate insolvency resolution process' against 'Theme Export Private
Limited (Corporate Debtor). It has been mentioned that gratuity amount and
salary dues for the month of August, September, October and November, 2018
has not been paid and the partial salary for the twenty days of work in December,
2018 have not been paid. Though the 'Corporate Debtor' appeared but had not
opposed and in the result the Adjudicating Authority (National Company law
Tribunal), New Delhi Bench admitted the application under Section 9 of the 'I&B
Code' on 29th August, 2019. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
application under Section 9 was filed with malicious intent and not for the -2-
purpose of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution'. Learned counsel further submits
that the 'Corporate Debtor' was not agreeable to pay a meagre sum of
Rs.2,48,000/- and could have settled the matter but the 'Corporate Debtor' but
intentionally had not objected the same as the Appellant has taken the steps
under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, according to him,
the application under Section 9 was not maintainable.
On hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant we find that the Bank
has already ceased the account having declared the 'Corporate Debtor' as 'Non-
Performing Assets'. It was for a said reason, the employee could not be paid.
In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the
submission that 1st Respondent filed the application with malicious intent or in
collusion with the 'Corporate Debtor'.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1104 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free