Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1058 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Whether the Operational Creditor is entitled for the refund of the training costs of ₹ 25,00,000/- along with interest? - deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- A demand notice was issued calling upon the Corporate Debtor to pay the outstanding amounts. The demand notice dated 13.02.2020 does not specify the amounts that are due. It specifies that a demand notice is enclosed but no such enclosure is found with the said demand notice. The enclosed demand notice is nothing but the application filed before the Tribunal in Form-5. A reply notice was issued on 18.02.2020 stating that the Operational Creditor joined service with effect from 29.06.2015 and continued till 28.02.2017 and that he paid ₹ 25,00,000/- as training costs and he completed the training hence, he is not entitled for the refund of the said amount. When there are disputed question of facts pertaining to the manner and period of training this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the same. Whether the Corporate Debtor is due any amount to the Operational Creditor and whether he has committed default of the same? - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the Operational Creditor has voluntarily resigned from the service. Clause - 6 (F) (iv) is clear with regard to the obligations in case of resignation of Pilot. The resignation is tendered on 28.02.2017. The full and final settlement of accounts shows that the amount payable thereunder was mentioned. The same is filed by the Operational Creditor himself from which it can be understood that the said amount was received by the Operational Creditor. TDS dues for the month of January & February, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the salaries are not paid to the Operational Creditor. The TDS amounts are not credited to the account is the argument of the Corporate Debtor's Counsel which is cogent. When it is found that no salaries are due, the question of paying interest would not arise hence, claim for interest is also rejected. There is no dispute that except for the months of January & February, 2017 the salaries pertaining to the period prior to the date of termination are paid. Pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that the contention of the Corporate Debtor is not that there is any dispute with regard to the payments that have to be made to the Corporate Debtor. The contention is that there is no due at all to the Operational Creditor - Form the material brought before the Tribunal it is found that no amount is due to the Operational Creditor. Petition dismissed.
|