Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1046 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyDismissal of Section 9 petition - initiation of CIRP - It is contended that the Appellant remained an employee of the Corporate Debtor all through until his resignation and hence the Corporate Debtor was liable to clear the operational dues - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order after noticing the full and final settlement document has observed that the same was executed between the Appellant and MNT and not between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority has thereafter concluded while passing the impugned order that the settlement agreement clearly shows that the Appellant rendered services to MNT which was a separate company from the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority has further gone a step ahead to examine whether in such circumstances the Corporate Debtor can be said to owe any liability to the Appellant in the backdrop of their contention that the Corporate Debtor and the MNT shared the same the management. The Adjudicating Authority after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS BV. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] has relied thereon to hold that the holding company and subsidiary company are to be considered as separate legal entities and merely because their management was the same, raising of claims by the Appellant against the Corporate Debtor was not tenable. The reliance placed upon the Vodafone judgment supra by the Adjudicating Authority in the present facts of the case does not suffer from any infirmity and is very much in order. In this judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out the basic legal principle with regard to relationship between subsidiary company and holding company by holding that the legal relationship between a holding company and its subsidiary is that they are two distinct legal persons and the holding company does not own the assets of the subsidiary. The business of a subsidiary cannot therefore ordinarily be treated to be the business of the holding company. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity for tax and liability purposes. A subsidiary being a distinct legal personality is also allowed to have decentralised management. Mere ownership, parental control, management of a subsidiary by the holding company therefore does not constitute sufficient and adequate ground to justify piercing the status of their relationship as has been urged by the Appellant in the present case. Further, wherever public interest necessitates lifting of the corporate veil in the interests of justice, there always has to be some specific proof and evidence of fraud, wilful breach of trust, or some sham at play leading to avoidance or limiting the liabilities of the subsidiary company - However, to hold the parent company liable, there is need of specific and detailed information, but no such credible information has been provided by the Appellant. In the present case, there are no sustainable grounds placed on record for holding the Corporate Debtor company liable for the acts of its subsidiary and hence we affirm the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. The present is not a case where there is an undisputed debt for which Corporate Debtor can be brought under the rigors of CIRP. Therefore, in the attendant circumstances, the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] squarely applies to the facts of this case. When any Operational Creditor seeks to initiate insolvency process against a Corporate Debtor, it can only be done in clear cases where no real dispute exists between the two which is not so borne out from the present factual matrix. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Section 9 application. There are no reasons to disagree with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority - There is no merit in the Appeal - Appeal is dismissed.
|