# In the matter of Pramod Kumar Chaubey vs. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-08-06. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00280. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 by the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Aug 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00280
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pramod-kumar-chaubey-vs-praveen-kumar-jain-ors-59bb8735

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 by the Appellant against the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV) in CP (IB) 1007/ND/2018. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 9 application filed by Shri Pawan Gaur, an Operational Creditor, against M/s Schneider Prototyping India Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant, the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, filed the appeal, contesting the admission of the Section 9 application.

## Facts

Pramod Kumar Chaubey, the Suspended Director of Schneider Prototyping India Pvt. Ltd. (SPIN), filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, which had admitted a Section 9 application filed by Pawan Gaur, an Operational Creditor. Pawan Gaur, as Managing Director of SPIN, had entered into an Employment Agreement (EA) with a salary of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per month. The EA stipulated annual salary negotiations, with a fixed 20% escalation for the first five years and 7% thereafter. The EA was effective from 01.04.2012 and was not formally renewed after five years. The Corporate Debtor faced financial difficulties, which it attributed to mismanagement by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 resigned on 08.07.2018, claiming Rs. 1.10 cr in pending salaries. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the Section 9 application filed by the …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principles established in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority failed to properly consider the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority must conduct a thorough

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the ratio by finding that the Adjudicating Authority

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Pramod Kumar…
- **Respondents:** Schneider…; Praveen Kum…
- **Advocates:** Nalin K…; Nimisha…; +10 more

## Timeline

- **2012-04-01 — Employment Agreement…**: Employment Agreement between Pawan Gaur and Schneider Prototyping India Pvt. Ltd. became…
- **2017-03-31 — Employment Agreement…**: The initial term of the Employment Agreement between Pawan Gaur and Schneider Prototyping…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pramod-kumar-chaubey-vs-praveen-kumar-jain-ors-59bb8735