Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2020 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 107 - Tri - Companies LawWinding up of respondent company - recovery of outstanding dues - issuance of demand notice, demanding to pay the outstanding amount and also complied with the provisions of the Code by filing prescribed application under the Code - it is contended that the respondent's company should be deemed to be unable to pay its debt within section 434 read with section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 and it should be wind up and the corporate insolvency resolution process should be initiated - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioners have approached various authorities to seek recovery of salary, gratuities, etc. They have also obtained some orders from those authorities. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioner approaches this Adjudicating Authority in order to recover the alleged outstanding amount arises out of non-payment salary, gratuity, reimbursement of office imprest, reimbursement of fuel expenses and encashment of earned leave, etc. It is also to be noted that the respondent denied even engagement some of the petitioners in the company. Therefore, the petitioners have not established the alleged outstanding amount arises and various facts. It is settled position of law that the provisions of the Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount - The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software P. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] has inter alia, held that the IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. The petitioners not only failed to establish their claims beyond dispute but also failed to prove that the respondent-company is insolvent. And mere pendency of cases would not ipso facto prove that the company is insolvent. Moreover, it is stated by the respondent that several of cases have been settled and thus the company cannot be justified to put under the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) as urged by the petitioners - the petitioner failed to make out any case so as to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process as prayed for and thus the instant company petition is liable to be dismissed by granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue other remedies available to them under any other law to recover the alleged claims made in the company petition. Petition dismissed.
|