9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Limited Company with CIN:U33111TN1984PLC010909 which was incorporated on 05.08.1984 and that its Authorised Capital and Paid up Capital is Rs. 42.32 Crores and Rs. 41.32 Crores respectively. The Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor as per the Application is stated to be situated at 39-B, 5th Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024. 3. Part - III of the Applicant discloses the fact that the Operational Creditor had not given the name of the IRP and left it to the discretion of this Tribunal. From Part-IV of the Application, it is seen that a sum of Rs. 30,53,241/- along with compound interest @ 15% p.a. calculated till 30.09.2018, totalling a sum of Rs. 67,68,368/- is being claimed by the Operational Creditor as Operational Debt. The transactions given as to the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor as against the Corporate Debtor is stated to have arisen consequent upon an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. Part V of the Application describes the particulars of the documents records and evidence of default of the Operational debt which include the Abstract order of the Controlling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor. It is pertinent to note that the entire set of 20 Petitioner's in the present petition are also forming part of the said Memorandum of Settlement. f. The terms of Memorandum of Settlement inter alia was that all the claims and proceedings initiated before the Labour Forums / Courts have to be withdrawn and not to press for the award passed in ID No. 32 of 2003 and it was further agreed that the amounts mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement is in full and final settlement and all the workmen are deemed to have resigned from the job as of 31.07.2001. It was further agreed that upon signing of settlement, except for the amounts due and payable under the settlement, the workmen covered by this settlement shall have no claims. g. In consequent thereto, around 146 workmen have received the amounts as per the terms agreed in the settlement. However, one Mr. V. Sugumaran contested the settlement on the ground that the settlement was signed purportedly by a person who was not associated with the Trade Union of the Corporate Debtor and in relation thereto on a petition being filed by Trade union, the Additional Labour Court vide order dated 13.02.2007 held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid amount and the Tahsildar had issued a notice dated 27.07.2016 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 70,63,014/- from the Corporate Debtor. m. Challenging the order of the Tahsildar, Egmore, the Corporate Debtor has filed the W.P. No. 9014/2017 and the said writ petition is pending with a conditional interim order of stay to pay 25% of the gratuity amount to the impleaded employees (who are not the petitioners). Thus, the Operational Creditors have filed the present petition claiming for a sum of Rs. 67,68,368/- being the sum payable by the Corporate Debtor in lieu of the gratuity claims as passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour vide order dated 14.03.2017, 19.07.2018 and 25.07.2018, since the said claim is not the subject matter of W.P. No. 9014/2017. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. From the facts narrated above, it becomes clear that the issue which has to be decided is that whether there exists any "dispute" between the parties before the issuance of the Demand Notice by the Operational Creditors under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditors herein are already parties to the 12 (3) Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.A. No. 2115/2012 and on this count, it is evident that there exists a 'dispute' between the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor further contended that the majority of the applicants in the present petitions are the Appellants in the said Writ Appeal and the same is still pending before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also placed on record a table showing the name of the employee vis-a-vis the rank of the Appellant in the Writ Appeal and the same is reproduced hereunder; S. No. as in the Petitioner's Volume Name of the Employee Rank of the Appellant in the W.A. No. 21152/2012 1 K. Dayalan 68th Appellant 2 P. Dhanalakshmi 54th Appellant 5 P.N. Raghuraman 67th Appellant 6 R. Sasikala W/o. (Late) S. Ravikumar 50th Appellant 8 M. Meenakshi 7th Appellant 9 K. Bharathi 56th Appellant 10 Y. Jayakumar 38th Appellant 11 s Vasudevan 45th Appellant 12 C.S. Srinivasan 74th Appellant 13 V. Sekar 76th Appellant 14 T.R. Kalyani 62nd Appellant 16 S. Arunachalam 49th Appellant 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
