RAHUL KULSHRESHTRA Vs. TRIVENI MEDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 433(b), (e), (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the ex employee of the respondent company. He joined the respondent company on 01.06.2007 as Chief Executive Officer in terms of appointment letter dated 30.3.2007. It is pleaded that the respondent company stopped giving salary to the petitioner all of a sudden from September 2008 onwards on the plea that the respondent company was going into losses and that the salary would be paid as soon as funds are available. It is pleaded that on this assurance the petitioner continued working in the company. However, three months passed but he was not paid the salary despite requests. The petitioner started facing financial hardship hence in December 2008 he submitted his resignation which was accepted by the respondent company on 18.1.2009. Based on the above, the petitioner claims unpaid salary and other dues including interest totalling Rs.3.13 crores. Ultimately, on 28.12.2009 the petitioner sent legal notice claiming outstanding dues of Rs.80,35,664/- as some partial payments have been made in the interregnum.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that as per terms of the appointment letter dated 30.3.2007 the petitioner was obliged to give three months' notice before leaving the employment. He submits that admittedly no such three months' notice was given as the petitioner had resigned on 16.12.2008 and more or less immediately thereafter stopped coming for work. It is submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay three months salary. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner continued to withhold cameras files and other equipments of the respondent company and hence payments cannot be released to the petitioner. Lastly, it was pleaded that as per the winding up petition the petitioner claims unpaid dues of Rs.3,13,01,394/- whereas statutory notice was sent only of Rs.80,35,664/-.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an email dated 9.3.2009 sent by the respondent where the respondents have admitted an outstanding due of Rs.15,96,164/- as payable to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that as the salary was not being paid to the petitioner the petitioner was entitled to leave forthwith and the question of giving notice for three months as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 30.3.2007 would not arise.