Decode Resolvency International ... vs Prasun Kumar Roy

IN THE MATTER OF: Decode Resolvency International Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant

Versus

Prasun Kumar Roy & Anr. One of the Suspended Directors of the Board ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ch. Dhilleshwara Rao, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Archana Baghel, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.05.2025: I.A. No.1716 of 2025: This is an application praying for

condonation of 7 days delay in filing the appeal. Reasons for delay has been

pleaded in Para 27 of the application, which are as follows:

"27. That it is most respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor intentional but was purely circumstantial. The directions of the Ld. AA were not known until the receipt of the order, following which a detailed review of the matter and extensive consultations were undertaken to determine the most appropriate course of action. This process required careful consideration of the substantial issues involved in the appeal and, consequently, took time to finalize. Furthermore, the delay was compounded by unavoidable procedural challenges that arose during the Christmas holiday 2

season, a period during which normal administrative functions were significantly impacted, despite our best efforts to expedite the process. These challenges, which were beyond our control, contributed to the delay. In light of the bona fide circumstances and the substantial issues raised in the appeal, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of one day in the interest of justice and equity."

2. We find sufficient cause to condone the delay. 7 days' delay in filing

the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.1716 of 2025 is disposed of.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. This appeal has

been filed against order dated 21.11.2024 by which the Adjudicating

Authority has directed the liquidator to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-

from his own pocket for violating the orders. Present is a case where the

Corporate Debtor was in CIRP and the employees were paid their salary till

December, 2023. On 01.05.2024, order of liquidation was passed and on

10.05.2024 present Liquidator was appointed. The salary being not paid to

the employees, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 23.09.2024

directing for payment of salary by 04.10.2024. Thereafter, certain

correspondence took place between the Liquidator and the employees'

representative. The Liquidator asked for details of payment and bank

statement, which were responded by the employees' representative. Court

again passed an order on 29.10.2024 giving further time to the Liquidator to

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.450 of 2025 3

make payment and fixed the matter for 21.11.2024. When the matter was

taken up on 21.11.2024, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned

order.

4. Learned counsel for the Liquidator challenging the order submits that

the Appellant did not receive the details of salary payments of the employees

and further with regard to certain bank statements, they were received on

21.11.2024 in afternoon. It is submitted that the Appellant has already

brought all issues before the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, which

was taken note by the email sent by the Liquidator on 25.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 refuting the submissions of

learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the employees were paid their

salary by the Resolution Professional, which is matter of record and with

regard to after information asked by the Liquidator, all details were given

including the bank statement. It is submitted that details of 34 employees

including bank statement was given, however, no payments were made by the

liquidator. Hence, the Court has rightly passed the order.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

7. When the Court had issued direction to the Liquidator to release

payment to the employees by 04.10.2024 and thereafter, again passed order

on 29.10.2024, it was obligation of the Liquidator to make payment. The

Liquidator is in possession of all relevant documents which reflect payments

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.450 of 2025 4

made by the Resolution Professional. We, thus, are of the view that the

Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in issuing direction to

the Liquidator to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

8. The mere fact that the Appellant has brought the order in the notice of

the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, cannot absolve the obligation on

part of the Liquidator of complying with the orders of the Court. Even if, bank

details of all employees were not received by the Liquidator, at least details of

34 employees were submitted to the Liquidator and the Liquidator could have

started making payment for at least those employees to show his bonafide.

We are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.450 of 2025