N.Subramanian vs M/S. Aruna Hotels Ltd on 3 March, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

N.Subramanian vs M/S. Aruna Hotels Ltd on 3 March, 2021

Author: Rohinton Fali Nariman

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy

                                                                                   REPORTABLE

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2019


                         N. SUBRAMANIAN                                       …Appellant


                                                         Versus


                         M/S ARUNA HOTELS LTD. & ANR.                         …Respondents

                                                           WITH

                                        CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34841 OF 2018
                                        CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34836 OF 2018
                                        CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 34839 OF 2018


                                                      JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2019

1. I.A. No. 163654 of 2019 for intervention is dismissed.

2. The present appeal is filed by an erstwhile employee of the Corporate
Signature Not Verified

Debtor, i.e. the Respondent No.1 Company. The Appellant joined the
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.03.05
15:29:55 IST
Reason:

Corporate Debtor as a Personal Assistant on 01.01.1983, and over the

1
years received several promotions, including to Manager-Administration.

His final designation before he left from service in 2013 was Public

Relations Manager.

3. This appeal arises from an application that was made by the Appellant

under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“IBC”]

dated 21.07.2017. In this application, the Appellant averred that a sum of

Rs.1.87 Crores was owed to him, being the arrears of salary from the

year 1998 till 2013 when he retired from service, and that several

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 Rs. 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 counsel for the Company), stating that this

voucher was merely a red-herring, and in any case could not be relied

2
upon. According to the NCLT, even a cursory look at the said voucher by

the naked eye would show that the name of the Appellant has been filled

by somebody different from the person who has filled – in a different

handwriting – that the amount paid is in “full and final” settlement of the

arrears of salary. It was also held that this payment voucher was only

proof of payment of arrears of salary of 6 months’ payment @

Rs.35,000/- p.m. which was not paid on the due dates, but which was

paid in one go. In any event, the NCLT held that this voucher was not

part of the claim of the Appellant.

4. The NCLT then referred to a Civil Suit that was filed on 06.07.2017 by

the Corporate Debtor one week after the notice under Section 8 of the

IBC was issued by the Appellant (i.e. on 29.06.2017). The suit contained

the following prayers:

“a) declaring the notice/letters dated 30.09.2006,
22.01.2013, 30.06.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.09.2014
alleged to have been issued by 1st defendant as null
and void and will not bind the plaintiff,

b) grant permanent injunction restraining the 2 nd
defendant from relying on or claiming against the
plaintiff based on the alleged letters/notices dated
30.09.2006, 22.01.2013, 30.06.2013, 31.03.2014 and
30.09.2014.”

3
The NCLT went on to state that the suit was a desperate attempt of the

Company to get out of acknowledgements of liability 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 a letter by the Employees Provident Fund

Organisation dated 13.04.2016 and stated that the Appellant’s claim has

been settled as a result of that letter. It then, in a cryptic fashion, went

into the point of limitation and recorded:

“7. The Respondent – (‘Operational Creditor’) himself has
pleaded that the salary is due since 1998 which was not paid
but delay of raising claim of arrears of salary for the period
1998 to 2016 has not been explained.

***

9. In the present case as we find that there is an ‘existence of
dispute’ about arrears of salary and the Respondent has also

4
failed to explain the delay in making claim of arrears alleged to
be done since 1998 to 2016 (delay of about 18 years), we
hold that the application under Section 9 preferred by the
Respondent was not maintainable.”

7. For these reasons, including the fact that according to the NCLAT, a

dispute has been raised, the NCLAT held that the NCLT was incorrect in

admitting the matter, and thus allowed the appeal and set aside the

NCLT order.

8. Mr. Rai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, has

referred to three acknowledgements that are on record. The first is vide a

letter dated 30.09.2006 acknowledging arrears of payment of salary from

01.01.2000 till the actual date the Appellant was relieved from service.

The second is a letter dated 30.06.2013 stating that the “accounts will be

settled” as the Appellant had now been retired from service. He

emphasised the third letter, 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 Rs.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

5
acknowledgements of liability, there is no question of any “dispute”. On

the contrary, this admitted principal amount of Rs.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 the Company

in 2015, and the amounts due to the Appellant were neither reflected in

the annual reports of the Corporate Debtor nor in a Due Diligence Report

dated 27.07.2015. What is clear from a reading of the Report, together

with the annexures thereto, is that 77 employees were owed various

amounts which was promised to be paid by the new management. What

is conspicuous by its absence is the name of the Appellant in the

aforesaid annexures, and therefore, according to Mr. Parasaran, no

amount was owed to the Appellant. In any case, he argued that the

NCLAT appreciated the facts correctly, and the claim of the Appellant is

clearly time-barred. As an alternative argument, if the Court were to set

aside the NCLAT judgment, it ought to remit the same for hearing on

whether the NCLT was correct on merits in admitting the Section 9

petition.

10. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, what becomes clear is

the fact that from the date of the last acknowledgement i.e. 30.09.2014

6
till the date on which the petition before the NCLT was filed i.e.

27.07.2017, three years have not elapsed. Therefore, at least 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 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.

7
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 Appeals are rejected.

……………………………………..J.

[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

……………………………………..J.

[ B.R. GAVAI ]

……………………………………..J.

[ HRISHIKESH ROY ]
New Delhi;

March 03, 2021.

8



Source link