9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) numbered as IA No.673/2018 in CP (IB) No.294/7/HDB/2017. The matter related to insolvency proceedings with regard to Corporate Debtor - IVRCL Ltd. of Hyderabad. The Appellant has given particulars as to how the Appellant came to be appointed as General Manager Finance of the Corporate Debtor in 1994 and was subsequently appointed as Director in the Board and designated as Director - Finance. According to him, he had additional charge as Company Secretary in 1999 and was re-designated Director - Finance and Group Chief Financial Officer in 2005 and promoted as Executive Director Finance and Group CFO in 2008. He claimed that he was reappointed Exec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Form - D, the Appellant claimed dues payable prior to the commencement of CIRP. The same was placed before COC and after deliberating the payment of the salary arrears in the COC meeting, the Respondent had sent e-mail dated 21st May, 2018 informing that considering the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, in the absence of approval from Central Government or a 'No Objection Certificate' from the lenders, the remuneration paid in excess to the amount prescribed under the Companies Act, cannot be released in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent has referred to provisions of Section 197(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 to state that remuneration higher than the amount prescribed under the said Section required approval of the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that COC did not approve the excess payment. Resolution Professional has stated that to file Application for approval of managerial remuneration, he had informed COC in the 6th meeting held on 07.08.2018 to make requisite application for approval to the Central Government but the said resolution was rejected. For the period of CIRP process, the remuneration as approved for CFO was, however, paid. 5. We have heard Counsel for both sides. They have made submissions on above lines referring to the contents in the Appeal and as appearing in the Reply filed by Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority in Paragraphs - 25 and 26 of the Impugned Order observed as under:- "25. With regard to the admission of claim of the Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Dear Sir, I refer to the From D submitted by you under which an amount of INR 1,06,28,584 (Rupees One Crore Six Lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Four only) (Claim Amount) has been claimed by you from IVRCL Limited (Company). Based on the current legal position under the Companies Act, 2013, managerial remuneration in excess of the prescribed limits thereunder, cannot be paid by the Company, unless Central Government approval has been received for all remuneration payments in excess of the prescribed limits. Further, if any excess payments have been made by the Company to any managerial person, then such person is required to refund such payments to the Company. In the present case, no Central Government approval is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
