TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Creditor. The Appellant has failed to comply with labour laws leading to labour dispute before the labour commissioner and the Respondent has to release certain amount directly to the employees of the Appellant - It is proved beyond doubt that the Appellant is chasing for payments which is not the object of IBC. It is amply clear that the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in order and requires no review or reconsideration. There is no infirmity in the order passed by Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 29 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2021 - [Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial), [Mr. V.P. Singh] Member (Technical) And (Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa, Ms. Itisha Gulati, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. J. Amal Anand, Ms. Elvin Joshy, Advocates JUDGMENT DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The Appeal has been preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (In short IBC) against the Impugned Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi Bench in CP (IB) No. 1759/ND/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplied with by the Respondents. They were supposed to release 90 percent of payment of the bills value by 6th of every month but they were never releasing within due time. They have deducted TDS but have not released outstanding bills. The Appellant sent demand Notice dated 17th May, 2019 under the Code which was acknowledged by the Respondent via email dated 08th June, 2019 but still they did not clear the due. The Appellant has to face the labour problem because the non-payment of invoices/bills in due time as required as per the agreement. Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Application based on emails of the Corporate Debtor that there is pre-existing dispute is erroneous. It is a settled law that where TDS is deducted but payment is not made, a dispute can not be created afterwards. The Appellant has also cited the Judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 353 . They have also submitted that the position regarding interpretation of commercial contracts has been settled by the Supreme Court in its judgement in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Vs. Garg Sons International (2014) 1 SCC 686 (R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employees, amounting to ₹ 18,00,595/- which action on the part of the Respondent is in consonance with the dictum of Hon ble Supreme Court in People s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 1982 SCC(3) 235 (Relevant para 10), and Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Others (1996) 10 SCC 599 (Relevant Para 8) wherein it was held that if the contractor fails to make payment of wages, then the principal employer shall be liable to make the payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the principal employer to witness disbursement of wages to the contract labour by the contractor, collect all the necessary documents that establishes that the statutory benefits are being made available to the contract labours by the contractor. The Appellant has also failed to meet contractual obligations including statutory compliances. The Appellant has raised various inflated invoices. However in order to comply with income tax laws they have deducted certain TDS and deposit of TDS does not amount to acknowledgment of amount raised in the invoices. Reliance is placed on S.P. Brothers v. Biren Ramesh Kada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions made by their learned counsels and also the substantial law on the subject including the propositions of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and are having following observations: a. It is not in dispute that they have separate agreement for each of the hospital unit for supply of manpower particularly general duty assistance and housekeeping staff from 2016. b. There was no issue till 2017 between them either for supply of manpower or payment of their dues. c. Invoices for both units Dwarika Unit and Qutab Unit run into rough weather from October, 2018 to 1st June, 2019. d. The Respondent has reported deficiency of services from October, 2018 and also the issue of not getting the supporting documents form the Appellant showing compliances of various labour laws in spite of numerous correspondence between them. e. Correspondence between the parties in the form of email reflects prior to issue of demand notice revolving around non-submissions of documents for compliance of various labour laws as per agreement between them as also supply of shortage of staff and other related issue. f. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
