Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Nisheet Ranjan vs Letstark Tech Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 July 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the corporate debtor has raised a counter-claim and the operational creditor's claim is therefore disputed as to whether any amount is payable, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable; the adjudicating authority is not the forum to determine which portion of the claim and counter-claim is recoverable.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Nisheet Ranjan ...Appellant

Vs.

Letstark Tech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate

ORDER

09.07.2018─ The appellant an employee of 'Letstark Tech Private

Limited' (Corporate Debtor) filed an application under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I&B

Code') which has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh by impugned order

dated 31st May, 2018 on the ground of 'existence of dispute'.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that

there was no existence of dispute and in fact with regard to the admitted dues

TDS amount from the salary of the appellant has already been deducted by

the Corporate Debtor but in spite of the same the salary has not been paid.

3. From the records, we find that the 'Corporate Debtor' enclosed

Annexure A-5 with the reply disclosing the year-wise statement of the 'amount

payable', 'amount to be deducted for late coming', 'amount actually paid', 'TDS

deposited' thereby it was shown the amount due since the year 2008 to 2017

amounting to Rs.28,84,160 and after adjusting the same certain amount is

recoverable from the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority, after verification 2

of the record, held that it is not the Forum to examine as to which portion of

the claim of the 'Operational Creditor', and the counter claim made by the

'Corporate Debtor' is recoverable or due or can be said to be defaulted. There

being a dispute about the debt as to any amount is payable or not, the

Adjudicating Authority held that the application under Section 9 was not

maintainable.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of

the record, we find no ground to differ with the grounds shown by the

Adjudicating Authority. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial)

/ns/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2018

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