Mr Babubhai Shrimali And Ors vs The Committee Of Creditors And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 16 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 28 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a payment to a related party of the corporate debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process requires the prior approval of the Committee of Creditors; where no such approval, either prior or subsequent, has been given, a claim by suspended directors of the corporate debtor for salaries for the period of the process is not payable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Babubhai Shrimali & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The Committee of Creditors & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Appeared but did not mark appearance.
For Respondents : Mr. Bishwajit Dubey and Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharya, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
11.01.2023 Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal is
directed against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench) by which the
Application filed by the suspended Directors of the Board of Directors of the
Corporate Debtor seeking a direction to make payment of their salaries after the
initiation of CIRP has been rejected.
2. The appellants were suspended Directors whose claim was that they were
drawing salaries of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,83,334/- and Rs. 6,17,980/- before
CIRP commenced. After commencement of CIRP, the case is that they have
rendered services on the direction of IRP but the emoluments have not been
paid. It is submitted, however, immediately within one month and twenty eight
days they have submitted their resignations on 28.10.2021. CIRP commenced
on 01.09.2020.
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 16 of 2023 Page 1 of 2
3. The claim of the Appellant for payment of salary during the period of CIRP
was taken before the CoC on several occasions. CoC after deliberations, refused
to make the payment holding that it is a related party transaction and prior
approval of the CoC was required.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellants were
entitled for salary since they were directed to work by IRP and had they not been
directed, they would have got work elsewhere.
5. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant and perused the
records. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly taken the view that as per
requirements of Section 28 of IBC for any payment to the related parties
transaction, prior approval of the CoC was required. There being no approval of
the CoC either prior or subsequent, the claim of the Appellant for payment of
their salaries within period of CIRP has rightly been refused.
6. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment.
The Appeal is dismissed.
(Justice Ashok Bhushan) Chairperson
(Mr. Barun Mitra) Member(Technical) akc/Nn
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 16 of 2023 Page 2 of 2
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