Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K. R. Shriram, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Rajendra Prasad Bansal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Rajendra P. Bansal – Respondent
Interim Application No. 1161 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 1539 of 2012
Decided On : 04-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of employment and termination (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and withdrawal of funds (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 3. judicial ownership of deposited funds during appeal process (Para 11 , 16) |
| 4. impact of moratorium under ibc on withdrawal (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
K.R. Shriram, J. - The preliminary issue that falls for consideration in the present Interim Application is whether respondent can be allowed to withdraw the monies deposited by appellant pursuant to this Court's order dated 10th December 2012 towards stay of execution of the impugned judgment given that appellant is undergoing CIRP.
2. Appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of telecommunication services. Appellant is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 ('IBC') pursuant to the order dated 15th May 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai ('NCLT') in C.P. No.(I.B.) 1387 (MB) of 2017. Appellant is being represented in the present proceedings through its Resolution Professional.
3. Respondent in the abovementioned First Appeal, who is applicant in the Interim Application, is a former employee of appellant.
4. LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS:
| Sr. No. | Date | Particulars |
| 1. | 29th November 2001 | Respondent joined appellant as an employee pursuant to an Appointment Letter dated 29th November 2001 issued by appellant. |
| 2. | 31st October 2006 | Appellant unilaterally terminated respondent's employment. |
| 3. | 10th February 2010 | Respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 127/2010 ('Suit') in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane ('Trial Court'), inter alia, challenging the termination of his employment by appellant. |
| 4. | 28th April 2010 | Appellant filed its written statement in the Suit. |
| 5. | March 2011 | Respondent and appellant filed their respective |
|
| 29th February 2012 | affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief in the Suit. |
| 6 | 30th June 2012 | The Trial Court passed a judgment ('Impugned Judgment') directing appellant to pay the following sums of money to respondent: (a) Rs.4,82,112/- towards 3 months' salary along with interest @18% p.a. from 1st November 2006 till the date of realization. (b) Rs.9,24,006/- towards leave encashment along with interest @18% p.a. from 1st November 2006 till the date of realization. (c) Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages within 3 months from the date of the decree. |
| 7 | 5 th October 2012 | Respondent filed the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment. |
| 8 | 10th December 2012 | This Court passed an order directing the stay of execution of the impugned judgment subject to appellant depositing the entire decretal amount (payable as of 10th December 2012) with the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from 10th December 2012. |
| 9 | 3rd January 2013 | This Court passed an order recording appellant's statement that the entire decretal amount had been deposited with the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 10th December 2012. Appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.32,16,909/- with the Trial Court. |
| 10
| 18th February 2013 | This Court passed an order admitting the First Appeal |
| 11 | 18th February 2013 | This Court passed an order in Civil Application No.405 of 2013 filed by respondent in the First Appeal, inter alia, directing that: (a) Respondent was entitled to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- without furnishing any security (b) Respondent was allowed to withdraw Rs.10,00,000/- on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. (c) The Executing Court was directed to invest the remaining amount in a fixed deposit scheme of any nationalised bank with renewal clause. NOTE: In terms |
Encashed bank guarantee proceeds deposited as pre-deposit condition for MSME award stay held corporate debtor's CIRP asset subject to moratorium; decree holder claim via resolution process; writ not ....
The court affirmed that a decree can be issued based on admissions where debts owed are settled through an approved resolution plan, allowing the security deposit to be recovered unconditionally.
The court established that the nature of challenge under Article 226 and the absence of jurisdiction could trigger the invocation of the High Court's jurisdiction. The court also clarified that the f....
(1) Assets of company would include amounts lying to credit in bank accounts.(2) Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be available to Court to countenance breach of a statuary provision.
NCLT has jurisdiction under IBC Section 60(5)(c) to defreeze demat accounts holding corporate debtor's undisputed shares, frozen for crystallized listing fee dues, as issue relates to insolvency proc....
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain execution applications against dissolved entities; disputes of fraud must be resolved by NCLT as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The NCLT lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes such as rights under Joint Venture Agreements when they do not arise from the insolvency proceedings of the corporate debtor.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
