# In the matter of APITCO Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-01-02. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-03344. The applicants, former employees of APITCO Limited, filed an application under Section 9 of the…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 2 Jan 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-03344
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/apitco-limited-a2e61449

## Summary

### Background

The applicants, former employees of APITCO Limited, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against APITCO for non-payment of salaries. The applicants claimed a total due of Rs. 2,44,49,237/-, including principal and interest. APITCO disputed the claim, citing the need for reconciliation of accounts and questioning the validity of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) used by the applicants. The NCLT considered arguments from both sides, including the applicability of Section 4 of the IBC regarding the minimum default amount and precedents related to joint applications by operational creditors.

## Facts

Several former employees of APITCO Limited, acting through a General Power of Attorney (GPA), filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against APITCO for unpaid salaries. The total claim amounted to Rs. 2,44,49,237/-, including principal and interest. The employees' salaries were unpaid from October 2019 onwards, leading to resignations and superannuation. APITCO disputed the claim, stating that the accounts needed reconciliation and questioned the validity of the GPA. APITCO also argued that the individual claims of the employees did not meet the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore required under Section 4 of the IBC. The applicants provided documents such as appointment

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the applicants have misused the process of law and the claims made by them are untenable …

**Ratio:** The claims must be based on valid and provable debts, not merely fanciful or untenable

…

**Reasoning:** The respondent argued that the claims were untenable and fanciful. The court considered

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC is intended for genuine insolvency resolution, not for recovery of

…

**Application:** The court found that there was a genuine dispute regarding the amount owed,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rajeev Bh…; Sanjay…
- **Appellants:** Nethi Jagadish…
- **Respondents:** APITCO Li…

## Timeline

- **2019-10-01 — Non-payment of…**: Applicants' salaries not paid…
- **2022-12-01 — Demand N…**: Applicants served a demand…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/apitco-limited-a2e61449