# In the matter of Schneider Prototyping India Private Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-10-31. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-00924. The case involves a petition filed by Mr. Pavan Gaur, an operational creditor, under Section 9…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 31 Oct 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-00924
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/schneider-prototyping-india-private-limited-fd5df9a9

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed by Mr. Pavan Gaur, an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Schneider Prototyping India Private Limited, the corporate debtor, for defaulting on a payment of Rs. 17,53,06,336. The applicant claims that this amount is due based on an employment agreement and subsequent alterations, including unpaid salary, full and final settlement dues, and valuation of the applicant's India business. The corporate debtor contested the claim, alleging that there are contractual disputes, counterclaims, and that the applicant had siphoned off funds, leading to criminal proceedings.

## Facts

Mr. Pavan Gaur, the applicant, was employed by M/s. Schneider Prototyping India Private Limited, the corporate debtor, based on an employment agreement effective from 01.04.2012. He was appointed as the Managing Director. A business agreement dated 18.09.2013, altered the employment agreement, valuing the applicant's business at Rs. 5,74,11,750 as of 31.03.2013, to be compounded with interest. The applicant's salary was increased to Rs. 8,35,000 per month with effect from 19.09.2013. The employment agreement was not formally renewed. The applicant resigned on 07.06.2018, after issuing a communication to the HR department on 08.07.2018, requesting settlement of dues. The corporate debtor issued a notice of dispute on 20.06.2018, raising allegations. The applicant

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined in Sec. 5(20) of the Code exceeding the pecuniary …

**Ratio:** Section 5(20) of the IBC defines 'operational debt'. Section 4 specifies the pecuniary

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority considered the claim of the applicant, which included unpaid

…

**Interpretation:** The operational debt must be clearly defined and exceed the minimum threshold

…

**Application:** The Adjudicating Authority found that the applicant's claim exceeded the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** MANNI SANKARIAH…; BINOD KUMAR…
- **Appellants:** Pavan…
- **Respondents:** Schneider…; M/s. Schneider…

## Timeline

- **2012-04-01 — Employment Agreement…**: The Applicant and the Corporate Debtor…
- **2013-09-18 — Business Ag…**: A business agreement was entered into,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(20) — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-5)

---

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/schneider-prototyping-india-private-limited-fd5df9a9