13/10/2022

Whether Gratuity is payable when no Gratuity fund is created? – Rakesh Sharma Vs. Mr. Sumat Gupta, RP of M/s International Mega Food Park Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

In the instant matter, the Resolution Professional cannot be directed to make payment of gratuity to the applicant as there is no gratuity fund created by the corporate debtor. As regards the salary and leave encashment during the period of CIRP, the same pertains to the amounts payable to an employee for services rendered during the CIRP. In this connection, these expenses clearly fall within the definition of insolvency resolution process cost as defined in section 5(13)(c) of the IBC, 2016. In this case, a reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain and others Vs. Sundaresh Bhatt and others (2022) ibclaw.in 23 SC holding that the Wages/Salaries of the Workmen/Employees for the period during CIRP can only be included in the CIRP costs if it is established that the IRP/Resolution Professional managed the operations of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and that the concerned workmen/employees actually worked during the CIRP. The Resolution Professional is mandated to make provisions to meet such expenses under the code.

Whether Gratuity is payable when no Gratuity fund is created? – Rakesh Sharma Vs. Mr. Sumat Gupta, RP of M/s International Mega Food Park Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority have inherent power to replace Liquidator in case of criminal prosecution is going on against the Liquidator – Subrata Maity Vs. Mr. Amit C. Poddar & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Adjudicating Authority has replaced a new Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor in place of the Appellant who was erstwhile Liquidator. The Adjudicating Authority has noted in the order that the Appellant was arrested by the CBI and due to which 116 days was lost due to incapability of the Appellant to act as a Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was granted bail immediately.

Adjudicating Authority have inherent power to replace Liquidator in case of criminal prosecution is going on against the Liquidator – Subrata Maity Vs. Mr. Amit C. Poddar & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the standard with reference to which a case of a pre-existing dispute under the IBC must be employed cannot be equated with even the principle of preponderance of probability which guides a civil court at the stage of finally decreeing a suit. Once this subtle distinction is not overlooked, we would think that the NCLAT has clearly erred in finding that there was no dispute within the meaning of the IBC.

Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top