473
June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 61ground to assert that appellant-company had
already been in business.
INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY CODEEmployees directed to approach RP
for payment of overdue salaries as
individual claims couldn’t be decided
by TribunalAircel Employees v. Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
[2019] 106 taxmann.com 37 (NCL - AT)
In given case, salary had not paid to work-
ing employees during ‘Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process’. Being aggrieved, they
filed separate application before Adjudicating
Authority for release of salary. The Adjudi-
cating Authority, taking into consideration
fact that ‘Resolution Professional’ showed its
difficulty in arranging funds for payment of
salary to employees, expressed its inability
to pass specific directions. However, ‘Reso-
lution Professional’ was directed to place on
record list of employees with their designa-
tion, monthly salary and date up to which
salaries were disbursed. Against said order,
instant appeal was filed.
In course of appellate proceedings, it was
pointed out that salaries of working employ-
ees of ‘corporate debtor’ had been paid for
current period. However, appellant submitted
that a number of working employees had
been paid salary but Dearness Allowance,
etc., had not been paid. In some cases even
basic salary had not been paid.
On facts, individual claim of each of employee
could not be decided by Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, instant appeal was to be disposed
of with a liberty to individual aggrieved em-
ployees to approach ‘Resolution Professional
with representation showing that they were
working but had not been paid basic salary.
NCLT admits CIRP as date of acknowl-
edgement of debt by corporate debtor
was well within limitation periodP.K. Vaduvammal v. Jaydev Constructions
(P.) Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 28 (NCLT- Chennai)
In the instant case, the Operational creditor
supplied TMT bars to corporate debtor in year
2011 and raised invoices on various dates,
i.e., on 24.3.2014, 15.3.2016 and 26.3.2018,
The corporate debtor acknowledged debt
however failed to pay overdue amount. No
reply was given by the corporate debtor in
response to the section 8 notice sent by the
operational creditor. Thus, an application was
filed under section 9 against the corporate
debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process. Along with said appli-
cation, operational creditor filed invoices
and acknowledging outstanding amount to
substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that since operational
creditor had proved existence of debt and
default, instant application to initiate CIRP
was to be admitted. With regard to limitation,
it was held that since the instant application
filed in 2019 was within limitation period of
three years same was to be admitted.
Demand notice equivalent to valid
notice if it was issued by advocate
on behalf of corporate debtorSheena Adarsh v. Union Bank of India [2019]
106 taxmann.com 91 (NCL - AT)
Where demand notice under section 8 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was
issued to corporate debtors and Senior Ad-
vocate along with another advocate appeared
before Adjudicating Authority on behalf of
corporate debtor and were heard, it could not
be said that Adjudicating Authority admitted
application under section 7 of the InsolvencyWEEKLY REVIEW