Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 01 NCLT CK 0876

Mr. Thakorbhai Keshav Prajapati & Ors. vs HeatShrink Technologies Limited

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 2 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suchitra Kanuparthi, Member (Judicial) · V. Nallasenapathy, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.P. No. 1351/I&B/2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 697 words

Per: V. Nallasenapathy, Member (Technical)

ORDER

1.

This joint company Petition is filed by Thakorbhai Keshav Prajapati, and Ors. (hereinafter called "Petitioners") seeking to set in motion the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against HeatShrink Technologies Limited (hereinafter called "Corporate Debtor") alleging that the Corporate Debtor committed default in making payment to the extent of Rs.24,39,130/-to them, by invoking the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called "Code") read with Rule 5 and 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

2.

The petition reveals that the following is the details of due to the Petitioners on account of service benefits from the corporate Debtor as their employer.

SRName of the PetitionerPeriod of employmentLeave encashmentGratuityTotal amount in Rs.
1.Mr. Thakorbhai Keshav Prajapati01.04.2006 to 01.05.2017Rs.7,31,139/-Rs.6,99,486/-14,30,625/-
2.Mr. Kiran Vasu01.07.2005 to 01.05.2017Rs.1,79,436/-Rs.2,09,638/-3,88,804/-
3.Mr. Dilip Mhatre01.04.1997 to 01.05.2017Rs.2,49,951/-Rs.3,69,750/-6,19,701/-
3.

The petitioners, in April 2018, individually sent demand notices, under section 8 of the Code in Form 3, claiming the amount due to them and the said notices are enclosed to the petition. However, there was no reply from the Corporate Debtor for any of the demand notices.

4.

The Corporate Debtor filed the written submissions wherein it was submitted that they are facing financial crunch and could not restart their business operations and therefore sought time for payment of said monies.

5.

The Petitioners enclosed the response of the Corporate Debtor, in reply to their request seeking payment of leave encashment and gratuity, and the same are extracted below:

a)

Reply sent to the 1st Petitioner by the Corporate Debtor

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
b)

Reply sent to the 2nd Petitioner by the Corporate Debtor.

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
c)

Reply sent to the 3rd Petitioner by the Corporate Debtor

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
6.

The above letters clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor has admitted the liability of payment of dues of leave encashment and gratuity and defaulted in making payment to them. The laws of employment thus provide that the employee is entitled to claim the dues under the heads namely 1) Leave encashment and 2) Gratuity, after rendering service during the course of employment.

7.

This Bench having been satisfied with the petition filed by the Petitioner which is in compliance of provisions of Section 8 & 9 of the Code, admits this petition declaring Moratorium with the directions as mentioned below:

(a)

that this bench hereby prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgement, decree or other in any court of law; transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor.

(b)

that the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.

(c)

that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.

(d)

that the order of moratorium shall have effect from 02.01.2020 till the completion of the CIRP or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under section 33, as the case may be.

(e)

that the public announcement of the CIRP shall be made immediately as specified under Section 13 of the Code.

(f)

that this Bench hereby appoints Mr. Arihant Nenawati, residing at 513, Mastermind-1, Royal Palm Estate, Aarey Colony, Goregaon, Mumbai,Maharashtra ,400065; having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00456/2017-18/10799 as Interim Resolution Professional to carry the functions as mentioned under the Code.

8.

Accordingly, this Petition is admitted.

9.

The Registry is hereby directed to communicate this order to both the parties and to the Interim Resolution Professional immediately.