RAHUL WADHWANI Vs. PLANMAN CONSULTING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present petition is filed under sections 433(e) & (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been associated with the Indian Institute of Planning and Management ("IIPM") Group of Companies in various capacities since 2009. The petitioner was a senior level managerial personnel and undertook various assignments and offered support to different companies of the group as identified and instructed by the Promoter of the group Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri. On 1.7.2010 the petitioner was retained by the respondent company as a Consultant and was rendering advisory and consultancy services for the management of the respondent company. Under the terms of engagement, remuneration of Rs. 4,75,000/-per month was to be paid to the petitioner. After deduction of T.D.S. and 3% contribution to Great Indian Dream Foundation the net consultancy fees payable to the petitioner was Rs. 4,13,250/-. It is pleaded that from September 2012 onwards the respondent company stopped making payment to the petitioner except part payment of an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- in July 2013 in respect of professional fees. In fact it is further pleaded that the respondent company has stopped paying most employees and professionals in view of the financial crunch that the IIPM Group of Companies was facing. Consequently, the petitioner decided to terminate his employment with the respondent company. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that his dues from September 2012 to September 2013 @ Rs. 4,50,000/- per month have not been paid.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various documents to point out that the petitioner continued to be engaged in the work of the respondent for the said period, namely, September 2012 to September 2013. Reliance is placed on Form 26AS to show the agreed charges payable to the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on some blackberry messages exchanged with Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri to show that payments remains payable to the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on some e-mails that have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel has also relied upon the statutory notice dated 14.5.2014 and the reply sent by the respondents dated 20.6.2014. It has been pleaded that in the said reply the respondents have not denied the fact that the salary for the period September 2012 to September 2013 has not been made and submits that only vague and unsubstantiated pleas claiming that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 100,00,000/- to the respondent is being made.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the respondent has reiterated that the petitioner stopped working in August 2012 and there is not an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner continued to work thereafter. He submits that all payments have been duly made to the petitioner which were liable to be paid.