TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of an acknowledgement made by the then Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, the arrears of salary due for a period of at least 3 years prior to 30.09.2014 would certainly be within limitation, and therefore payable to the Appellant. This being the case, it is clear that the NCLT judgment is correct in admitting the Section 9 application by the Appellant. Mr. Rai correctly points out that the Employees Provident Fund letter dated 13.04.2016 was only a red-herring, and has nothing to do with the arrears of salary which had to be paid. It is clear that there is an acknowledgement of liability, which therefore shows that there is no dispute as to amounts owed to the Appellant. The impugned NCLAT judgment is accordingly se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledgments of liability have been given of the arrears payable, the last of which was by a letter dated 30.09.2014 by the erstwhile Managing Director of the Company. The Corporate Debtor replied to the aforesaid Section 9 application denying any liability and, in any case, stated that claims that are made by the Appellant are time-barred. The National Company Law Tribunal [ NCLT ] in its judgment dated 17.11.2017, after setting out the facts and, in particular, setting out the acknowledgement of liability letter dated 30.09.2014, went on to state that the principal amount of ₹ 1.06 Crores being admitted, a case has been made out for admission. It also referred to a certain payment voucher (which was relied upon by the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability that were due, and appears to be mala fide, fraudulent and mischievous . 5. Mr. Ritin Rai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, informs us that this suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution. We are informed that an application to restore the suit to the file is pending. 6. Referring to the point of limitation, the NCLT held in favour of the Appellant, relying upon the acknowledgement dated 30.09.2014, as a result of which, it admitted the petition and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional and imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. In the appeal filed by a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor (i.e. Respondent No.2 before us), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [ NCLAT ] referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 30.09.2014, which had appended to it the list of the exact amount due from 1998 till the date of retirement which amounted to roughly ₹ 1.06 Crores. According to him, all these acknowledgements would show that amounts due and payable to the Appellant cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Equally, the Employees Fund Organisation letter is only a red-herring, and has nothing to do with the facts of this case, and it is clear that given the acknowledgements of liability, there is no question of any dispute . On the contrary, this admitted principal amount of ₹ 1.06 Crores is due to the Appellant. 9. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent Company, has argued that a new management took over t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Mr. Rai correctly points out that the Employees Provident Fund letter dated 13.04.2016 was only a red-herring, and has nothing to do with the arrears of salary which had to be paid. It is clear that there is an acknowledgement of liability, which therefore shows that there is no dispute as to amounts owed to the Appellant. The impugned NCLAT judgment is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the NCLT judgment is restored to the file. The alternative argument of Mr. Parasaran also stands dismissed in view of what has been held by this judgment. 11. The Appeal is thus allowed. CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34841 OF 2018, CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34836 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34839 OF 2018 12. Permission to file the Civil Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
