Ranjeet Singh vs M/S Karan Motors Private Limited

[Arising out of order dated 18.02.2020 in CP (IB)-703/ND/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V] IN THE MATTER OF: Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Nikka Ram R/o 24-A, New Guru Hari Kishan Nagar, Nilothi Extension, West Delhi, Delhi-110041. ....Appellant.

Versus M/s Karan Motors Private Limited, Office Flat No. 118, First Floor, Kirti Shikhar Building, Plot No. 11, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ...Respondent.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020

[Arising out of order dated 18.02.2020 in CP (IB)-702/ND/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V] IN THE MATTER OF: Shally Sati D/o Sh. Hansa Dutt Sati R/o H.No. 7/14, Street No. 14, D-Block, Kamalpur, Kamalvihar, Santnagar Burari, Delhi-110084. ....Appellant.

Versus M/s Karan Motors Private Limited, Office Flat No. 118, First Floor, Kirti Shikhar Building, Plot No. 11, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ...Respondent. 2

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020

[Arising out of order dated 18.02.2020 in CP (IB)-705/ND/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V] IN THE MATTER OF: Deepa Sati D/o Sh. Hansa Dutt Sati R/o H.No. 7/14, Street No. 14, D-Block, Kamalpur, Kamalvihar, Santnagar Burari, Delhi-110084. ....Appellant.

Versus M/s Karan Motors Private Limited, Office Flat No. 118, First Floor, Kirti Shikhar Building, Plot No. 11, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ...Respondent.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020

[Arising out of order dated 18.02.2020 in CP (IB)-706/ND/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V] IN THE MATTER OF: Hansa Dutt Sati, S/o Sh. K.N. Sati R/o H.No. 7/14, Street No. 14, D-Block, Kamalpur, Kamalvihar, Santnagar Burari, Delhi-110084. ....Appellant.

Versus M/s Karan Motors Private Limited, Office Flat No. 118, First Floor, Kirti Shikhar Building, Plot No. 11, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ...Respondent.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 3

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020

[Arising out of order dated 18.02.2020 in CP (IB)-743/ND/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V] IN THE MATTER OF: Asha Devi, W/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh, R/o 24-A, New Guru Hari Kishan Nagar, Nilothi Extension, West Delhi, Delhi-110041. ....Appellant.

Versus M/s Karan Motors Private Limited, Office Flat No. 118, First Floor, Kirti Shikhar Building, Plot No. 11, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ...Respondent.

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Shrey Vardhan Rateria and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Gupta, Advocate.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 4

JUDGMENT

(18th August, 2021)

Justice Anant Bijay Singh;

INDEX

A The Appeal.

B The facts of these Appeals.

C Submissions on behalf of the Appellants in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721

of 2020, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020, Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 and Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020.

D Submissions on behalf of the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor'.

E Findings.

F Order.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 5

A The Appeal

1. All these Appeals are arising out of the common order dated

18.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

tribunal), New Delhi Bench-V, whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

passed following orders:

"XXIV. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the

considered view that since the admitted principal amount

has already been paid by the Corporate Debtor, therefore

there is no occurrence of default and no debt is due.

Hence, all the present applications are not liable to be

accepted. Accordingly, all the present applications- IB-

702/ND/2019, IB-706/ND/2019, IB-703/ND/2019, IB-

743/ND/2019 and IB-705/ND/2019 are hereby

dismissed. However, we hereby permit all the Operational

Creditors/Petitioners to get the cheques of admitted

principal amount from the office of Registrar, NCLT, New

Delhi where Corporate Debtor has deposited the same."

2. All these Appeals were heard together and disposed of by common

judgment.

B The Facts of these Appeals

The facts giving rise to these Appeals are under:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020 (Ranjeet Singh Vs. M/s Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd.)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 6

3. The Appellant- 'Ranjeet Singh' was employed with the Respondent-

'M/s Karan Motors Private Limited' since 2007.

ii) In the year 2013, the Respondent without having reason skipped the

salary of the Appellant for the period January 2013 to June 2013 and again

in the year 2014 the Respondent did not pay the salary of the Appellant for

the period May 2014 to September 2014.

iii) Further case is that in the year 2017 the Respondent again failed to

pay the salary for the period of April 2017 to September 2017.

iv) Since February 2013 the Appellant has been requesting the

Respondent to clear the outstanding salary but the Respondent simply kept

on shirking away from its obligations on the pretext of one excuse or the

other.

v) Due to non-payment of salary the Appellant started facing financial

hardship and therefore stopped going to the Respondent company since end

of September 2017 and finally tendered his resignation on 03.10.2018.

vi) That in order to recover the said outstanding amount the Appellant -

'Operational Creditor' even sent a legal notice through his Counsel on

04.10.2017, despite that the Respondent did not release the said amount.

vii) Thereafter, the Appellant-Operational Creditor filed Application

bearing CP(IB)-703/ND/2019 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC) before NCLT, Delhi wherein the

Appellant claimed the salary for the period of January 2013 to June 2013;

May 2014 to September2014; April 2017 to September 2017, gratuity,

interest @ of 18% from the date of default till realization of amount.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 7

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020 (Shally Sati Vs. M/s Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd.)

4. The Appellant- 'Shally Sati' was employed with the Respondent- 'M/s

Karan Motors Private Limited' since 2013.

ii) In the year 2014, the Respondent without having reason skipped the

salary of the Appellant for the period May 2014 to September 2014.

iii) Further case is that in the year 2017 the Respondent again failed to

pay the salary for the period of April 2017 to September 2017.

iv) Since June 2014 the Appellant has been requesting the Respondent to

clear the outstanding salary but the Respondent simply kept on shirking

away from its obligations on the pretext of one excuse or the other.

v) Due to non-payment of salary the Appellant started facing financial

hardship and therefore stopped going to the Respondent company since end

of September 2017 and finally tendered her resignation on 22.10.2017.

vi) Thereafter, the Appellant-Operational Creditor filed Application

bearing CP(IB)-702/ND/2019 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Delhi wherein the Appellant claimed

the salary for the period of May 2014 to September 2014; April 2017 to

September 2017, interest @ of 18% from the date of default till realization of

amount.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020 (Deepa Sati Vs. M/s Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd.)

5. The Appellant- 'Deepa Sati' was employed with the Respondent- 'M/s

Karan Motors Private Limited' since 2011.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 8

ii) In the year 2014, the Respondent without having reason skipped the

salary of the Appellant for the period May 2014 to September 2014.

iii) Further case is that in the year 2017 the Respondent again failed to

pay the salary for the period of April 2017 to September 2017.

iv) Since June 2014, the Appellant has been requesting the Respondent

to clear the outstanding salary but the Respondent simply kept on shirking

away from its obligations on the pretext of one excuse or the other.

v) Due to non-payment of salary the Appellant started facing financial

hardship and therefore stopped going to the Respondent company since end

of September 2017 and finally tendered her resignation on 22.10.2017.

vi) Thereafter, the Appellant-Operational Creditor filed Application

bearing CP(IB)-705/ND/2019 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Delhi wherein the Appellant claimed

the salary for the period of May 2014 to September 2014; April 2017 to

September 2017, gratuity, interest at the rate of 18% from the date of

default till realization of amount.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 (Hansa Dutt Sati Vs. M/s Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd.)

6. The Appellant- 'Hansa Dutt Sati' was employed with the Respondent-

'M/s Karan Motors Private Limited' since 2010.

ii) In the year 2014, the Respondent without having reason skipped the

salary of the Appellant for the period May 2014 to September 2014.

iii) Further case is that in the year 2017 the Respondent again failed to

pay the salary for the period of April 2017 to September 2017.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 9

iv) Since June 2014, the Appellant has been requesting the Respondent

to clear the outstanding salary but the Respondent simply kept on shirking

away from its obligations on the pretext of one excuse or the other.

v) Due to non-payment of salary the Appellant started facing financial

hardship and therefore stopped going to the Respondent company since end

of September 2017 and finally tendered her resignation on 22.10.2017.

vi) That in order to recover the said outstanding amount the Appellant-

'Operational Creditor' even sent a legal notice through his Counsel on

04.10.2017 despite that the Respondent did not release the said amount.

vii) Thereafter, the Appellant-Operational Creditor filed Application

bearing CP(IB)-706/ND/2019 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Delhi wherein the Appellant claimed

the salary for the period of May 2014 to September 2014; April 2017 to

September 2017, gratuity, interest at the rate of 18% from the date of

default till realization of amount.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020 (Asha Devi Vs. M/s Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd.)

7. The Appellant- 'Asha Devi' was employed with the Respondent- 'M/s

Karan Motors Private Limited' since 2012.

ii) In the year 2013, the Respondent without having reason skipped the

salary of the Appellant for the period January 2013 to June 2013.

iii) Further case is that in the year 2014 the Respondent did not pay the

salary of the Appellant for the period May 2014 to September 2014.

iv) In the year 2017, the Respondent again failed to pay the salary for the

period of April 2017 to September 2017.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 10

v) Since February 2013, the Appellant has been requesting the

Respondent to clear the outstanding salary but the Respondent simply kept

on shirking away from its obligations on the pretext of one excuse or the

other.

vi) Due to non-payment of salary the Appellant started facing financial

hardship and therefore stopped going to the Respondent company since end

of September 2017 and finally tendered her resignation on 03.10.2018.

vii) Thereafter, the Appellant-Operational Creditor filed Application

bearing CP(IB)-743/ND/2019 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Delhi wherein the Appellant claimed

the salary for the period of January 2013 to June 2013; May 2014 to

September 2014; April 2017 to September 2017, gratuity, interest at the

rate of 18% from the date of default till realization of amount.

8. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties passed the

common order on 18.02.2020 and dismissed all the Applications filed by the

Appellant - 'Operational Creditor' under Section 9 of the IBC. Hence these

Appeals.

C Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020 (Ranjeet Singh)

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and in his Written Submissions and also in Additional Written

Submissions has stated that the Respondent is firstly challenging the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 11

maintainability of all these present Appeals as time barred. It is submitted

that the Respondent has filed the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court as Annexure- R/2 at page 31 of the Reply Affidavit in the

case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 "in re -cognizance for

extension of limitation" read as under:

" This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.

We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.

This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 12

Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks."

10. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid directions passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court these Appeals are not time barred and not hit

by limitation Act. Hence, the present Appeals are within limitation.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and in his Written Submissions and also in Additional Written

Submissions has stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing

the impugned order overlooked the claim of salary for the month of January

2013 to June 2013; May 2014 to September 2014.

ii) It is further submitted that the non-payment of salary is recurring

cause of action and relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh in CWP-2411/2019 (Jagdish Chand Vs State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble High Court, while deciding

bunch of petitions, viewed that non-payment of salary is recurring cause of

action and hence cannot be time barred.

iii) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have erred

holding that in absence of any claim between the parties the Appellant

cannot claim interest at the rate of 18%. Further referred to Section 3(11) of

the IBC definition have been given in the IBC "a liability or obligation in

respect of claim which is due from any person..."

iv) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed

to consider gratuity and salary falls within this definition but this aspects of

the matter not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 13

v) It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills

Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" wherein viewed that if workmen have not

been paid their wages and/or salary by company, they would certainly be a

creditor. This judgment was also not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, so the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

vi) It is further submitted that the Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act, 1978

says "Court" includes a tribunal and an arbitrator" further Section 3 of

the Act stipulates the power of Court to allow interest in Section 3 of the Act

reads as under:

"3. Power of Court to allow interest-

i). In any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or

in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of

any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if

it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or

damages..."

vii) It is further submitted that the Courts, Appellate Tribunal can also

invoke its inherent power as enshrined in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016

and grant the interest to the Appellant. So based on these submissions the

impugned order should be set aside and the Appeal should be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020 (Shally Sati)

12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and his Written Submissions as also Additional Written

Submissions have stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 14

the impugned order overlooked the claim of salary for the month of May

2014 to September 2014.

ii) It is further submitted that the non-payment of salary is recurring

cause of action and relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh in CWP-2411/2019 (Jagdish Chand Vs State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble High Court, while deciding

bunch of petitions, viewed that non-payment of salary is recurring cause of

action and hence cannot be time barred.

iii) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have erred

holding that in absence of any claim between the parties the Appellant

cannot claim of interest at the rate of 18%. Further referred to Section 3(11)

of the IBC definition have been given in the IBC "a liability or obligation in

respect of claim which is due from any person..."

iv) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed

to consider that gratuity and salary falls within this definition but this

aspects of the matter not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

v) It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills

Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" wherein viewed that if workmen have not

been paid their wages and/or salary by company, they would certainly be a

creditor. This judgment was also not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, so the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

vi) It is further submitted that the Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act, 1978

says "Court" includes a tribunal and an arbitrator" further Section 3 of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 15

the Act stipulates the power of Court to allow interest in Section 3 of the Act

reads as follow:

"3. Power of Court to allow interest-

i). In any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or

in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of

any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if

it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or

damages..."

vii) It is further submitted that the Courts, Appellate Tribunal can also

invoke its inherent power as enshrined in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016

and grant the interest to the Appellant. So based on these submissions the

impugned order is set aside and the Appeal be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020 (Deepa Sati)

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and his Written Submissions as also Additional Written

Submissions have stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing

the impugned order overlooked the claim of salary for the month of May

2014 to September 2014.

ii) It is further submitted that the non-payment of salary is recurring

cause of action and relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh in CWP-2411/2019 (Jagdish Chand Vs State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble High Court, while deciding

bunch of petitions, viewed that non-payment of salary is recurring cause of

action and hence cannot be time barred.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 16

iii) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have erred

holding that in absence of any claim between the parties the Appellant

cannot claim of interest at the rate of 18%. Further referred to Section 3(11)

of the IBC definition have been given in the IBC "a liability or obligation in

respect of claim which is due from any person..."

iv) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed

to consider that gratuity and salary falls within this definition but this

aspects of the matter not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

v) It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills

Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" wherein viewed that if workmen have not

been paid their wages and/or salary by company, they would certainly be a

creditor. This judgment was also not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, so the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

vi) It is further submitted that the Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act, 1978

says "Court" includes a tribunal and an arbitrator" further Section 3 of

the Act stipulates the power of Court to allow interest in Section 3 of the Act

reads as follow:

"3. Power of Court to allow interest-

i). In any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or

in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of

any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if

it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or

damages..."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 17

vii) It is further submitted that the Courts, Appellate Tribunal can also

invoke its inherent power as enshrined in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016

and grant the interest to the Appellant. So based on these submissions the

impugned order is set aside and the Appeal be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 (Hansa Dutt Sati)

14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and his Written Submissions as also Additional Written

Submissions have stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing

the impugned order overlooked the claim of salary for the month of May

2014 to September 2014.

ii) It is further submitted that the non-payment of salary is recurring

cause of action and relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh in CWP-2411/2019 (Jagdish Chand Vs State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble High Court, while deciding

bunch of petitions, viewed that non-payment of salary is recurring cause of

action and hence cannot be time barred.

iii) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have erred

holding that in absence of any claim between the parties the Appellant

cannot claim of interest at the rate of 18%. Further referred to Section 3(11)

of the IBC definition have been given in the IBC "a liability or obligation in

respect of claim which is due from any person..."

iv) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed

to consider that gratuity and salary falls within this definition but this

aspects of the matter not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 18

v) It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills

Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" wherein viewed that if workmen have not

been paid their wages and/or salary by company, they would certainly be a

creditor. This judgment was also not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, so the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

vi) It is further submitted that the Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act, 1978

says "Court" includes a tribunal and an arbitrator" further Section 3 of

the Act stipulates the power of Court to allow interest in Section 3 of the Act

reads as follow:

"3. Power of Court to allow interest-

i). In any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or

in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of

any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if

it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or

damages..."

vii) It is further submitted that the Courts, Appellate Tribunal can also

invoke its inherent power as enshrined in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016

and grant the interest to the Appellant. So based on these submissions the

impugned order is set aside and the Appeal be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020 (Asha Devi)

15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of oral

argument and his Written Submissions as also Additional Written

Submissions have stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 19

the impugned order overlooked the claim of salary for the month of January

2013 to June 2013; May 2014 to September 2014.

ii) It is further submitted that the non-payment of salary is recurring

cause of action and relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh in CWP-2411/2019 (Jagdish Chand Vs State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble High Court, while deciding

bunch of petitions, viewed that non-payment of salary is recurring cause of

action and hence cannot be time barred.

iii) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have erred

holding that in absence of any claim between the parties the Appellant

cannot claim of interest at the rate of 18%. Further referred to Section 3(11)

of the IBC definition have been given in the IBC "a liability or obligation in

respect of claim which is due from any person..."

iv) It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed

to consider that gratuity and salary falls within this definition but this

aspects of the matter not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

v) It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills

Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" wherein viewed that if workmen have not

been paid their wages and/or salary by company, they would certainly be a

creditor. This judgment was also not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, so the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

vi) It is further submitted that the Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act, 1978

says "Court" includes a tribunal and an arbitrator" further Section 3 of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 20

the Act stipulates the power of Court to allow interest in Section 3 of the Act

reads as follow:

"3. Power of Court to allow interest-

i). In any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or

in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of

any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if

it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or

damages..."

vii) It is further submitted that the Courts, Appellate Tribunal can also

invoke its inherent power as enshrined in Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016

and grant the interest to the Appellant. So based on these submissions the

impugned order is set aside and the Appeal be allowed.

D Submissions on behalf of the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor'

16. Learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument,

and also in its Written Submissions submitted that the present Appeals are

time barred in terms of the provisions of Section 61(2) of the IBC as same

are not filed within statutory period of 30 days from the date of impugned

order i.e. 18.02.2020 and the time of 30 days was expired on 20.03.2020

but the Appeals were filed on 18.08.2020 after 174 days and after deducting

30 days' time there is delay of 144 days in filing the present Appeals.

17. It is further submitted that proviso of Section 61 of the IBC gives the

power to NCLAT to condone the delay, if the Appeal is filed beyond 30 days

further only period of 15 days will be given, but here the Appeals have been

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 21

filed after delay of 129 days and no Interlocutory Application has been filed

for condonation of delay.

18. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020 further submitted that the claims of the

Appellant are time barred and disputed. The Appellant had made following

claims before the Adjudicating Authority as under:

ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent - 'Corporate Debtor' has

already made payment of Rs. 4,02,166/- (admitted amount) during

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority which is duly accepted and

acknowledged by the Appellant and rest of the claim (claim and interest) of

Rs. 18,91,343/- is time barred and rightly rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 22

iii) It is further submitted that IBC cannot be a way for recovery of dues

which is a time barred claim.

iv) It is further submitted that the claim of Gratuity of Rs. 2,57,942/- is

also not due and payable. The claim for gratuity can be decided by the

Competent Authority under the Gratuity Act for which the Appellant has not

approached the appropriate authority.

v) It is further submitted that the Appellant was employed with the

Respondent as in-charge of production in the Machine Shop and during

employment Appellant indulged in the activities which shows that Appellant

deliberately and intentionally caused losses to the Corporate Debtor and

suffered by the Corporate Debtor towards quality, loss of business of several

lacs besides loss of reputation in international market. The Respondent -

Corporate Debtor actually suffered substantial losses and damages of Rs.

31,33,992.50.

vi) It is further submitted that the Appellant without permission,

authorization and intimation remained absent w.e.f. 03.10.2018 without

giving charge to any other person and thus caused loss of production,

quality, defects and delay in deliveries and losses.

19. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020 further submitted that the claims of the

Appellant are time barred and disputed. The Appellant had made following

claims before the Adjudicating Authority are hereunder:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 23

ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent - 'Corporate Debtor' has

already made payment of Rs. 1,37,837/- (admitted amount) during

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority which is duly accepted and

acknowledged by the Appellant and rest of the claim (claim and interest) of

Rs. 2,83,246/- is time barred and rightly rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

iii) It is further submitted that IBC cannot be a way for recovery of dues

which is a time barred claim.

iv) It is further submitted that the Appellant is daughter of Mr. Hansa

Dutt Sati (Appellant in Appel No. 723 of 2020) who was In-Charge of

production in the Foundry. The said Mr. Hansa Dutt Sati (father) falsely

represented that the Appellant is properly qualified and competent to work

as designer and thus by using his influence and position, got the Appellant

appointed on salary higher than in usual course, whereas the present

appellant was not deserving.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 24

v) It is further submitted that the Appellant without permission,

authorization and intimation remained absent w.e.f. 23.09.2017 without

giving charge to any other person and has caused loss of production,

quality, defects and delay in deliveries and losses.

20. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020 further submitted that the claims of the

Appellant are time barred and disputed. The Appellant had made following

claims before the Adjudicating Authority are hereunder:

ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent - 'Corporate Debtor' has

already made payment of Rs. 1,45,476/- (admitted amount) during

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority which is duly accepted and

acknowledged by the Appellant and rest of the claim (claim and interest) of

Rs. 3,66,775/- is time barred and rightly rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 25

iii) It is further submitted that IBC cannot be a way for recovery of dues

which is a time barred claim.

iv) It is further submitted that the claim of Gratuity of Rs. 53,654/- is

also not due and payable. The claim for gratuity can be decided by the

Competent Authority under the Gratuity Act for which the Appellant has not

approached the appropriate authority.

v) it is further submitted that the Appellant is daughter of Mr. Hansa

Dutt Sati (Appellant in Appel No. 723 of 2020) who was In-Charge of

production in the Foundry. The said Mr. Hansa Dutt Sati (father) falsely

represented that the Appellant is properly qualified and competent to work

as designer and thus by using his influence and position, got the Appellant

appointed on salary higher than in usual course, whereas the present

appellant was not deserving.

vi) It is further submitted that the Appellant was not attending office but

her father by misusing his position, malafidely shown her as working and

thus kept on drawing salary for which the Appellant did not work. That due

to negligence and wrong workings by her father, it caused loss of business of

several lacs besides loss of reputation in international market. The

Respondent-'Corporate Debtor' actually suffered substantial losses and

damages of Rs. 31,33,992.50.

vii) It is further submitted that the Appellant without permission,

authorization and intimation remained absent w.e.f. 03.10.2018 without

giving charge to any other person and has caused loss of production,

quality, defects and delay in deliveries and losses.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 26

21. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 further submitted that the claims of the

Appellant are time barred and disputed. The Appellant had made following

claims before the Adjudicating Authority are hereunder:

ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent - 'Corporate Debtor' has

already made payment of Rs. 3,81,222/- (admitted amount) during

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority which is duly accepted and

acknowledged by the Appellant and rest of the claim (claim and interest) of

Rs. 9,50,597/- is time barred and rightly rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

iii) It is further submitted that IBC cannot be a way for recovery of dues

which is a time barred claim.

iv) It is further submitted that the claim of Gratuity of Rs. 1,83,912/- is

also not due and payable. The claim for gratuity can be decided by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 27

Competent Authority under the Gratuity Act for which the Appellant has not

approached the appropriate authority.

v) it is further submitted that the Appellant was employed with the

Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' In-charge of production in the Foundry. He

indulged in the activities, deliberately and intentionally to cause losses

suffered by the Corporate Debtor with respect to quality and loss of business

of several lacs besides loss of reputation in international market. The

Corporate Debtor actually suffered substantial losses and damages on

account of quality and timely completion of delivery schedule.

vi) It is further submitted that the Appellant had earlier caused notice

dated 04.10.2017 which was replied by the Corporate Debtor vide dated

09.10.2017 disputing claim by the Appellant stating nothing due and

payable besides cautioning that the Appellant will be liable to compensate

for the damages and loss suffered by the Respondent. The Respondent-

'Corporate Debtor' actually suffered substantial losses and damages of Rs.

31,33,992.50.

vii) It is further submitted that the Appellant without permission,

authorization and intimation remained absent w.e.f. 23.09.2017 without

giving charge to any other person and has caused loss of production,

quality, defects and delay in deliveries and losses.

22. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020 further submitted that the claims of the

Appellant are time barred and disputed. The Appellant had made following

claims before the Adjudicating Authority are hereunder:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 28

ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent - 'Corporate Debtor' has

already made payment of Rs. 1,65,880/- (admitted amount) during

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority which is duly accepted and

acknowledge by the Appellant and rest of the claim (claim and interest) of

Rs. 7,47,276/- is time barred and rightly rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

iii) It is further submitted that IBC cannot be a way for recovery of dues

which is a time barred claim.

iv) It is further submitted that the claim of Gratuity of Rs. 45,029/- is

also not due and payable. The claim for gratuity can be decided by the

Competent Authority under the Gratuity Act for which the Appellant has not

approached the appropriate authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 29

v) It is further submitted that the Appellant is wife of Mr. Ranjeet Singh

(Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 719 of 2020) who was In-

Charge of production in the machine Shop production in the Foundry. The

said Mr. Ranjeet Singh (Husband) falsely represented that the appellant is

properly qualified and competent to work as Assistant Engineer-Design and

thus by using his influence and position, got the Appellant appointed on

salary higher than in usual course, whereas the present appellant was not

deserving.

vi) It is further submitted that the Appellant was not attending office but

her husband by misusing his position, malifidely shown her as working and

thus kept on drawing salary for which the Appellant did not work.

v) It is further submitted that by misrepresenting qualification and

skills, the husband Mr. Ranjeet Singh and the Appellant, in collusion and

connivance caused huge loss including loss on account of rejection of goods

produced to the Respondent. As a matter of fact, on account of

misrepresentation and fraud, the Respondent company wanted to file

criminal case against the Appellant but her husband sought mercy and

sympathy, hence the respondent did not pursue criminal proceedings. The

Corporate Debtor actually suffered substantial losses and damages of Rs.

31,33,992.50.

vi) It is further submitted that the Appellant without permission,

authorization and intimation remained absent w.e.f. 23.09.2017 without

giving charge to any other person and has caused loss of production,

quality, defects and delay in deliveries and losses.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 30

23. It is further submitted that the petition under Section 9 of the IBC is

against the main objective of IBC which is maximization of value of assets. It

is well settled that the IBC proceedings are not the recovery proceedings. In

these present Appeals, the Appellants have filed the Applications for

recovery of time barred claim.

24. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. 2018 (1) SCC

353 in paragraph 34 has held that that the "Insolvency proceedings cannot

be triggered by the Operational Creditor for disputed claim". Further

submitted that the aforesaid judgment was relied by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Transmission Corpn. of A.P Ltd. Vs. Equipment

Conductors & Cables Ltd. 2019 (12) SCC 697 .

25. It is further submitted that there is no "claim", "debt", Operational

Debt, "due" and "payable" in favour of the Appellant as defined under the

IBC, 2016. The claim of the period May 2014 to September2014 and interest

claim thereon are clearly time barred. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondent relied on the judgment of Swiss Ribbon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI 2019

(4) SCC 17 in paragraph 64 of the judgment wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the "date of default is relevant and not cause of action."

26. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that based on

these submissions there is no merit in these Appeals, therefore, these

Appeals are fit to be dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 31

E FINDINGS

27. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the

records of these Appeals and considering the arguments advanced on behalf

of the parties and going through the written submissions and also

Additional Written Submissions filed on behalf of Appellants and

Respondent.

 We are of the view that so far as the question of limitation of all these

Appeals being hit by limitation is concerned that in view of order

dated 23.03.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 "in re -cognizance for extension of

limitation" has held that "it is hereby ordered that a period of

limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation

prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether

condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020

till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present

proceedings." Thus, all these Appeals filed by the Appellants are

covered by the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly, we hold that these Appeals are not barred by limitation

and the submission made on behalf of the Respondent is hereby

rejected.

 That the Appellants are employees of the Corporate Debtor- M/s

Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd. The appellants claim fall within IBC as

Operational Debt. In view of Section 5(20) and 5(21). The said Sections

are reads hereunder:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 32

"5(20) "Operational creditor" means a person to whom an

operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom

such debt has been legally assigned or transferred;

5(21) "Operational debt" means a claim in respect of the

provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in

respect of the [payment] of dues arising under any law for the

time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any

State Government or any local authority;"

 The Appellants have filed Applications under Section 9 of the IBC

before the Adjudication Authority. From the perusal of the record it

appears that in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020

Appellant had sent the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC

which is contained in page 62 to 64 of the Appeal Paper Book and in

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 Appellant had also

sent the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC which is contained

in page 62 to 64 of the Appeal Paper Book. In remained Appeals, i.e.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020, Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020 and Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020 Appellants have not sent the demand

notice under Section 8 of the IBC and straight away filed Application

under Section 9 of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law tribunal), New Delhi which is contrary to the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 33 in Mobilox

Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited

reported in (2018) 1 SCC 353 and relied by the Bench of this

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 33

Tribunal also at paragraph 5 of M/s Krystal Integrated Services Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. M/s Indiaontime Express Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 194 of 2019] .

 From the perusal of the record in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No. 719 of 2020 at Annexure -A/2 (page 46 to 97 of the Appeal Paper

Book) at page 56 wherein Part-IV of the Application at Sl. No. 2 which

deals with amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the

default occurred, no specific date has been mentioned by the

Appellant rather it has been mentioned that claim of total interest of

Rs. 10,02,701/- and interest @ 18% from 14.02.2019 till the

realisation of outstanding amount.

 From the perusal of the record in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No. 721 of 2020 at Annexure -A/2 (page 44 to 77 of the Appeal Paper

Book) at page 54 wherein Part-IV of the Application at Sl. No. 2 which

deals with amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the

default occurred, no specific date has been mentioned by the

Appellant rather it has been mentioned that claim of total interest of

Rs. 1,64,421/- and interest @ 18% from 14.02.2019 till the realisation

of outstanding amount.

 From the perusal of the record in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No. 722 of 2020 at Annexure -A/2 (page 46 to 79 of the Appeal Paper

Book) at page 56 wherein Part-IV of the Application at Sl. No. 2 which

deals with amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the

default occurred, no specific date has been mentioned by the

Appellant rather it has been mentioned that claim of total interest of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 34

Rs. 1,87,711/- and interest @ 18% from 14.02.2019 till the realisation

of outstanding amount.

 From the perusal of the record in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No. 723 of 2020 at Annexure -A/2 (page 46 to 82 of the Appeal Paper

Book) at page 56 wherein Part-IV of the Application at Sl. No. 2 which

deals with amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the

default occurred, no specific date has been mentioned by the

Appellant rather it has been mentioned that claim of total interest of

Rs. 4,65,355/- and interest @ 18% from 14.02.2019 till the realisation

of outstanding amount.

 From the perusal of the record in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No. 728 of 2020 at Annexure -A/2 (page 46 to 82 of the Appeal Paper

Book) at page 56 wherein Part-IV of the Application at Sl. No. 2 which

deals with amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the

default occurred, no specific date has been mentioned by the

Appellant rather it has been mentioned that claim of total interest of

Rs. 4,22,447/- and interest @ 18% from 14.02.2019 till the realisation

of outstanding amount.

 In the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil

Appeal No. 676 of 2021 [Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited &Anr.] dated

10.08.2021 where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22

as under:

"22 The resolution plan was approved by the CoC, in

compliance with the provisions of the IBC. The jurisdiction of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 35

the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) is to

determine whether the resolution plan, as approved by the

CoC, complies with the requirements of Section 30(2). The

NCLT is within its jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan

which accords with the IBC. There is no equity-based

jurisdiction with the NCLT, under the provisions of the

IBC."

 In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

we are conscious of the facts that both the NCLT and NCLAT works

under IBC where there is no equity jurisdiction and we are bound by

the provisions of the IBC while adjudicating the matters under IBC.

 The judgment relied by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant

regarding arrears of salary to be continuing cause of action as held by

the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court (supra), being a

constitutional Court have equity jurisdiction and the ratio of the

judgment cannot be followed by statutory Tribunal both NCLT and

NCLAT which ratio could not be followed with due reference while

deciding the claim under IBC.

 So far as, reliance placed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in

in the case of "JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs Juggilal Kamlapat

Jute Mills Company 2019 (11) SCC 332" is not applicable in these

Appeals in much as here the Appellants moved before the

Adjudicating Authority in individual capacity and they have preferred

these Appeals in individual capacity also. In this judgment Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 36

"Held, a trade union is certainly an entity established under a statute, in the sense of being governed by the Trade Unions Act, and would therefore fall within the definition of "person" under S. 3(23) of the Code - Thus, an "operational debt", meaning a claim in respect of employment, could certainly be made by a person duly authorised to make such claim on behalf of a workman - Further, instead of one consolidated petition by a trade union representing a number of workmen, filing individual petitions would be burdensome as each workman would thereafter have to pay insolvency resolution process costs, costs of the interim resolution professional, costs of appointing valuers, etc. -Further, trade union represents its members who are workers, to whom dues may be owed by the employer, which are certainly debts owed for services rendered by each individual workman, who are collectively represented by the trade union - Insolvency and Bankruptcy (application to Adjudicating Authority) rules, 2016 - R. 6 - Labour Law - trade Unions Act, 1926 - Sc. 2(h), 2(g), 8, 13, 15(c) and (d) - Interpretation of Statutes - Subsidiary Rules - Noscitur a sociis - Application of principle of to S. 3(23)(g) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 "

(Paras 12 to 17)

 The question decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the

collective application on behalf of the workman can be filed by the

trade union. The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the question in the

above judgment as to whether trade union fall within the definition of

"person" under Section 3(23) of the IBC. In the instant case this

question does not arise in much as all the Appellants herein have

invoked independently the provisions of Section 9 of the IBC.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 37

 It is also an admitted fact that in all these Appeals, the Appellants

have failed to show any document to establish that the Respondent

has acknowledged the dues of salary, gratuity etc. from 2014

onwards.

 Considering all these facts and provisions of the law, we are of the

considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The

Ld. Adjudicating Authority have rightly dismissed the Applications

under Section 9 of the IBC filed by the Appellants by observing that "if

for delayed payment applicant(s) claim any interest, it well be open to

them to move before a court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of

interest, but initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is not

the answer."

F ORDER

28. We agree with the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders dated

18.02.2020 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Law tribunal), New Delhi Bench-V while dismissing the Applications under

Section 9 of the IBC filed by the Appellants in CP (IB)-703/ND/2019, CP

(IB)-702/ND/2019, CP (IB)-705/ND/2019, CP (IB)-706/ND/2019 and CP

(IB)-743/ND/2019 are hereby affirmed. There is no merit in these Appeals.

i) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 719 of 2020 is dismissed.

ii) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 721 of 2020 is dismissed.

iii) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 722 of 2020 is dismissed.

iv) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 723 of 2020 is dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020 38

v) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 728 of 2020 is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

29. Registry to upload the Judgment forthwith on the website of this

Appellate Tribunal.

30. Registry is directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-

V, forthwith.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

New Delhi

18th August, 2021

R. Nath.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 719, 721, 722, 723 & 728 of 2020