Aditya Birla Money Ltd. Vs. Vijendra Bangar – NCLAT New Delhi

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2023) 410 NCLAT Case Name : Aditya Birla Money Ltd. Vs. Vijendra Bangar […]


I. Case Reference

Case Citation : (2023) 410 NCLAT
Case Name : Aditya Birla Money Ltd. Vs. Vijendra Bangar
Appeal No. : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 774 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2603, 2551 of 2023
Judgment Date : 04-Jul-23
Court/Bench : NCLAT New Delhi
Chairperson : Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Member (Technical) : Mr. Barun Mitra
Original Judgment : Download

II. Full text of the judgment


04.07.2023: IA No. 2551 of 2023 – This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 117 days in refilling the appeal. The ground taken in the application is that the Board Resolution 02.02.2014 was not available in Chennai Office of the Appellant Company and it took time to obtain sub-delegation.

2. It is submitted that there was an authorized signatory available only on 29.03.2022. Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in refilling the appeal, the delay is condoned.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on IA No. 113/2021 filed by the IRP.

4. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has directed for payment for an amount of Rs. 5,80,066/-.

5. The Appellant challenging the order contended that the Appellate Tribunal has passed order on 28.02.2021 directing the IRP not to constitute the CoC. The Appellate Tribunal ultimately decided the appeal on 18.03.2021. In pursuance of the order dated 18.03.202, the IRP has filed the application.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has also paid an amount of Rs. 2 lacs and no further amount ought to have directed for payment.

7. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and peruse the records.

8. This Tribunal in its order dated 18.03.2021 by direction C, issued the following direction:-

“(C) The IRP/RP will place particulars regarding CIRP costs and fees before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority after examining the correctness of the same, will give directions regarding payment, as per provisions existing under IBC.

The Appeal is disposed accordingly. No Costs.”

9. It was in pursuance of the direction of this Tribunal that IA was filed by the IRP and IRP before the Adjudicating Authority gave details of the work which has been performed by the IRP and which has been noticed in paragraph 9 of the order.

10. After considering the entire facts and the circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority has directed the payment of minimum fee to the IRP. The details of CIRP expenses have been noted in paragraph 12 in a tabular form. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has taken due consideration of all materials on record and has rightly issued the direction for payment of Rs. 5,80,066/-. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan]

[Mr. Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)

Click on below button to search similar judgments:

Follow for daily updates:

Scroll to Top