Mr. Nagarajan vs Mohalingam Suresh Kumar, Liquidator of M/s. Easun Reyrolle Ltd.

The Appellant, who contends that, he was a Technical Assistant, and was employed by M/s. Easun Reyrolle Ltd, a company incorporated in 1987 under the Companies Act, which had been put under CIRP proceedings, in pursuance to the order issued on 05.05.2020, and subsequently has been put into liquidation on 17.02.2022.

The Appellant contends that, he had submitted his claim before the liquidator pertaining to his service dues inclusive of balance gratuity amount, the workmen salary, leave encashment and other dues which was partially rejected by the liquidator on 06.05.2022. Aggrieved by the same, he had preferred an Appeal under Section 42 of I&B Code before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in IA 1982/CHE/2023 in IBA/1045 & 1169 of 2019. However Ld. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application vide the order dated 01.12.2023.

A reading of the impugned Order shows that there were various pending Interlocutory Applications including IA No. 1982/2023 and IA No. 1989/2023, which were taken up for consideration. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the IA No. 1982/2023 and IA No. 1989/2023 preferred by Appellant. IA No.1982/2023, was filed against the order of liquidator rejecting claim of the Appellant. IA 1989/2023 was filed praying to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. But, there is no mention in the Impugned Order as to whether the aspect of Condoning the delay was ever considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority even though this was one of the vital aspects required to be embarked upon by the Adjudicating Authority, while deciding the controversy pertaining to rejection of the claim of gratuity amount, the workmen salary, salary falling during the COVID period and the privilege leave encashment. On the perusal of the Impugned Order, it is seen that, there is not even a single observation, which has been made by the Tribunal, qua the aspect relating to the delay raised before the Tribunal, nor there is any independent adjudication on the question of delay, any definite finding recorded, or any reasons have been given.

Apart from it, even the rejection of the application by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order seems to be sans any logic or reasons for not to accept the contentions of the Appellant, either on the aspect of delay or either on the aspect of the merits of the claim as raised by the Appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Thus, the Impugned Order reflects an apparent non-application of mind by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Hence, without further proceeding to address on the merits of the matter, the Impugned Order dated 01.12.2023, as it has been passed by the NCLT Chennai, on IA No. 1982/2023 & IA No. 1989 of 2023, would stand 'quashed'. The matter is remitted back to the Ld. NCLT to re-decide the matter on its merits including the aspect of delayed claim, after hearing the parties concerned. The Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 67/2024, accordingly would stand "allowed".