Sanil Prakash Sahu vs Ms. Chaya Gupta Liquidator Of Gwalior ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.669 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Regulation 19(4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, a liquidator is under a duty to admit the claims of workmen or employees of a corporate debtor under liquidation on the basis of the corporate debtor's books of account, even where no claim has been formally filed by them. Where the value of the assets of the corporate debtor under liquidation has not yet been realised, a belated claim by a workman or employee should not be rejected merely for delay; the liquidator is required to consider such a claim on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Sanil Prakash Sahu ...Appellant Ex-workman of Gwalior Polypipes Ltd. Vs. Ms. Chaya Gupta ...Respondent Liquidator of Gwalior Polypipes Ltd.
Present: Appellant: Mr. Shubham Budhiraja, Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates Respondent: Mr. Rohit Dubey, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.08.2025 - A Director of the Company under liquidation has made
his claim as an employee of the Company as regards certain dues payable
to him. This was rejected by the Liquidator on the ground that it was
belatedly made. He, therefore, moved the NCLAT with I.A. No.85 of 2025
and that came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not
explained the delay to its satisfaction. This Order of the adjudicating
authority is now under challenge.
Heard both sides. Placing reliance on Regulation 19(4) of IBBI (Liquidation
Process) Regulations, 2016, the learned Counsel submitted that even
dehors any claim, the liquidator is under duty to admit the claims of a
workman or an employee on the basis of the books of accounts of the 2
Corporate Debtor. Set in the context, the claim which the appellant had
made I.A. No.85 of 2025 before the adjudicating authority, has only an
enabling effect to remind the liquidator of his duty to consider the claims
of workmen and employees of the Company under liquidation.
To a pointed query, the Counsel for the respondent/Liquidator submitted
that he is only in the process of selling the asset of the debtor.
In the face of Regulation 19(4) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations,
2016, this Tribunal finds considerable merit in the submissions of the
Counsel for the appellant. Since the value of the assets of the company
under liquidation is yet to be realized, there should not be any concern in
considering the claim of the appellant.
The Appeal is allowed and the respondent/liquidator is now required to
consider the claim of the appellant on merit.
[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) rs/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.669 of 2025
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