Kommineni Venkata Krishna Rao (Alias: KV Krishna Rao) vs Bhuvan Madan

[Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)]

Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 16/01/2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in IA No. 57 of 2023 in IA No. 483 of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 17/9/HDB/2020, the Operational Creditor preferred this Appeal and the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed IA No. 57 of 2023 filed by the Applicant / Appellant herein seeking to set aside the Order dated 29/07/2022, passed in IA No. 483/2022 and to admit the entire Claim of the Applicant / Appellant of a sum of Rs.3,17,90,332/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two Only). While dismissing the Application, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ has observed as follows:

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ has erroneously observed that the communication of the Resolution Professional dated 20/09/2022 was not challenged by the Claimant and that the Order dated 29/07/2022 which has already been acted upon by the Applicant cannot be a subject matter of Challenge once again in this Application.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel that IA No. 483/2022 was filed seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to accept the total Claim of Rs. 3,17,90,322/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Two Only), which was disposed of, by the Tribunal on 29/07/2022 giving a direction to the Appellant to produce additional evidence in support of his Claim in the form of ‘Minutes of Nomination and Remuneration Committee Meeting’ held on 12/11/2018 and the Annual Returns of the Corporate Debtor for the FY 2017-18. With these Directions, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Resolution Professional to reconsider the matter afresh. Pursuant to the Order dated 29/07/2022, the Appellant had communicated with the Respondent over Video Conference on 18/08/2022 and on 25/08/2022 and the documents submitted by the Appellant were verified. On 20/09/2022, the Resolution Professional addressed an email to the Appellant stating that he is ‘unable to verify and admit the Claim for the said amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Eighty Five Lakhs Only) as ‘Bonus’ which was claimed by the Applicant / Appellant on the basis of the Board Resolution dated 30/05/2018 and on 12/11/2018. By the said email, the Resolution Professional called upon the Applicant / Appellant to furnish further documents and information to support his Claim. It is submitted that dissatisfied by the decision taken by the Resolution Professional, the Appellant filed IA No. 1066/2022, seeking to reopen the IA No. 483/2022 and to set aside Order dated 29/07/2022. This Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 11/11/2022 without considering the merits of the email of the Resolution Professional dated 20/09/2022 on the ground that there was no irregularity in the Order impugned. Therefore, the Appellant had withdrawn IA No. 1066/2022 and subsequently filed IA No. 57/2023 challenging the email of the Respondent dated 20/09/2022.

At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the reliefs sought for by the Applicant / Appellant in IA No. 57/2023, detailed hereunder:

From the aforenoted reliefs sought for in IA No. 57/2023, it is clear that the Applicant / Appellant had sought for setting aside the Order dated 29/09/2022 passed by the Resolution Professional. Therefore, the observation made by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ regarding the Order dated 20/09/2022, not being challenged, is incorrect. It is the case of the Appellant that the reason given by the Resolution Professional for Rejection of a substantial portion of a ‘Claim’ is that Superannuation Benefit / Ex gratia Benefit, was revoked by the Board of Directors by a ‘Resolution’ passed by the Board Meeting dated 12/11/2018, but that the Resolution Professional had not taken into consideration that the Appellant had circulated the Minutes of the Board Meeting, conducted on 29/11/2018 and on 30/11/2018 and the said Meeting of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee, dated 12/11/2018. There were no objections made in respect of the same. It is submitted that in the email dated 20/09/2022, the Resolution Professional has not given any reasons for the Rejection of the Appellant’s Claim on account of Leave Encashment, to the extent of Rs.15,63,947/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Seven Only).

It is seen from the record that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ has dismissed the ‘Application’ with Cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). To prevent the aberration of ‘Justice’ and having regard to the fact that vide one of the reliefs sought for in IA No. 57 of 2023, the Applicant / Appellant had challenged the Order dated 20/09/2022, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the earnest view that the Cost imposed may be set aside. Without delving deep into the merits of the matter, a last and final opportunity be given to the Appellant herein to present his case before the Resolution Professional along with all relevant documentary evidence within a week from the date of pronouncement of this Order. Needless to add, the said decision is to be taken in a dispassionate manner, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Appeal. At the cost of repetition, this is the last opportunity being given to the ‘Appellant’ herein and it is made clear that no further ‘Applications’ / ‘Memos’ filed by the Applicant / Appellant herein would be entertained by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’.

With these observations, this Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 181/2023 is ‘disposed of’ accordingly. No Costs. Connected Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are ‘closed’.