TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P for getting approval from the Central Government required CoC's approval with ' the requisite majority which was not forthcoming. Meanwhile this Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 26.07.2019 in 1A Nos. 544 680 of 2019 has passed an Order of Liquidation. In view of the Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, this Adjudicating Authority deems it proper not to adjudicate upon the instant IA at this point of time and feels it proper to direct the Applicant herein to approach Liquidator for the relief in relation to the approval of remuneration by Central Government - application disposed off. - IA No. 321/2019 in CP(IB) No. 294/7/HDB/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2020 - K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy , Member ( J ) And Dr. Binod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intment letter was completed and that the Corporate Debtor confirmed the services of Applicant as Senior Vice President - Projects in G1 grade with effect from 01.05.2014. That on 28.07.2014, the Corporate Debtor was pleased to award an increment of the gross salary with effect from 01.07.2014. b. That in view of the commitment and hard work of the Applicant, Corporate Debtor has increased the salary of the Applicant with effect from 01.06.2016 and accordingly addressed a letter dated 02.07.2016. The remuneration of the Applicant after being nominated on the Board as Executive Director was kept the same ₹ 74,98,704.00 per annum i.e., from 01.06.2017 as it used to be since 01.06.2016. That the said remuneration of the Applicant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That on 23.01.2018, the Applicant resigned from the Board of the Corporate Debtor but continued as a regular employee of Corporate Debtor as Executive Director from 24.01.2018 with the same remuneration and also gave his full support and co-operation to the Respondent herein from the date of the appointment of the Resolution Professional i.e., 23.02.2018. e. Inspite of the Applicant providing his services, the Applicant did not receive the salary for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 for the reasons not known to the Applicant. f. In view of the above, the Applicant addressed an email dated 20.04.2018 to the Corporate Debtor informing them that his salary for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 was not paid to him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating Authority by its order dated 07.03.2019 directed the Respondent to pay the salary of the Applicant after setting off the amounts paid in excess to the Applicant and which are shown in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor as an advance paid to the Applicant. i. The Respondent's decision to approach the COC again has caused grave hardship to the Applicant in view of the contradictory decision of the COC in its 7th meeting after having given a no objection to approach the Central Government in its 2nd meeting. The decision of the COC in its 7th meeting with regard to the retracting of the resolution to approach the Central Government has been made without any application of mind and no reasoning whatsoever and is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cement of: CIRP) made an Application with the Registrar of Companies ( ROC ) to obtain the approval of the Central government as required for the payment of Remuneration to the Applicant. The ROC then directed the Corporate Debtor to obtain an approval from the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor and from the shareholders at the Annual General Meeting of the Corporate Debtor. Further, in view of the Corporate Debtor already being a Non-Performing Asset ( NPA ), the Central Government also directed the Corporate Debtor to obtain an approval from the lenders of the Corporate Debtor under Schedule 5 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the same. The lenders did not approve the payment of Remuneration to the Applicant. iv. That after the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in put a resolution for approval of the remuneration payable to the Applicant to vote before the COC. However, even on this occasion the said resolution stood rejected as it obtained only 58.32% votes of the COC in favour. vii. Further, the minutes of the 6th and 7th COC meetings sufficiently clarify the fact that the Resolution Professional had put the resolution for approval for payment of remuneration payable to the Applicant to vote before the COC on two separate occasions and the same have been rejected on both these occasions. Therefore, the Applicant's contention that the Resolution Professional has failed in his duty to apply to the ROC under section 197(1) of the Companies Act is not sustainable. The direction given to the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
