Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Bank Of Baroda vs Ratan Singh & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 October 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1104 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:Bank of Baroda ...AppellantVersusRatan Singh & Anr. ...RespondentsPresent:For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateORDER

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