Adverse remarks against Insolvency/Resolution Professional/Liquidator

Whether Resolution Professional ceases to have any authority after approval of Resolution Plan to file an application for avoidance of transactions under the IBC – Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo Vs. Mr. Pramod Goenka and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the timelines under Regulation 35A are directory and not mandatory in nature. Section 25(2)(j) of the Code mandates the Resolution professional to file application for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III, if any. The Resolution Professional becomes functus officio after the approval of plan and he ceases to have authority to file any fresh application under the Code, except to prosecute the applications already pending before this Tribunal prior to approval of the Resolution Plan or before appellate authorities in relation to such pending application before this Tribunal or pending thereat at the time of approval of Resolution Plan.

Whether Resolution Professional ceases to have any authority after approval of Resolution Plan to file an application for avoidance of transactions under the IBC – Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo Vs. Mr. Pramod Goenka and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

There is no provision in Insolvency Code for extension of PPIRP Time limit under Section 54D of IBC – Vikash Gautamchand Jain RP of Kethos Tiles Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that a plain reading of Section 54D of IBC reveals that a time period of 120 days from the date of commencement of PPIRP is provided in the Act. As per Section 54D(3), if no Resolution Plan is approved by CoC the RP shall file an Application for Termination of PPIRP. Contrary to the Section Resolution Professional in the present matter has filed an Application seeking extension of time.

There is no provision in Insolvency Code for extension of PPIRP Time limit under Section 54D of IBC – Vikash Gautamchand Jain RP of Kethos Tiles Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Resolution Plan cannot and should not have adjudicated the claim on his own, instead of by NCLT – Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AVM Resolution Professional LLP – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Resolution Plan cannot and should not have adjudicated the claim on his own, instead of by NCLT – Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AVM Resolution Professional LLP – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Any application for replacement of Resolution Professional dehors Section 27 process can be entertained only when there are findings on conduct of the Resolution Professional by the Adjudicating Authority or some proved fact – Katra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) It is well settled that Section 27 is enabling provision where replacement of RP can be proceeded.
(ii) Any application for replacement dehors Section 27 process can be entertained only when there are findings on conduct of the Resolution Professional by the Adjudicating Authority or some proved fact, merely on allegation as has sought to be made by the Applicant, the Adjudicating Authority shall not enter into enquiry and decide the allegations for the purpose of deciding the application filed by the Appellant.

Any application for replacement of Resolution Professional dehors Section 27 process can be entertained only when there are findings on conduct of the Resolution Professional by the Adjudicating Authority or some proved fact – Katra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

No Liquidator’s fee can be charged from Scheme Proponent, who has submitted Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement under Sec. 230 of Companies Act, 2013 | Liquidator is entitled to his fee under Sec. 34 & Liquidation Regulation 4 and Cost under Regulation 2B – CA Jai Narayan Gupta (Liquidator of Barcle Enterprises Limited) v. Radhasiriya Properties Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The statutory provision is clear that Liquidator can only claim cost incurred from the parties who proposed the compromise or arrangement.
(ii) The Rule making Authority is fully aware of the difference between the cost and fee. Liquidation Regulation 2B, does not include fee. Regulation 4 of Liquidation Regulations, 2016 deals with fee.
(iii) Regulation 2B does not indicate that any fee by Liquidator can be charged from the Scheme Proponent. The Liquidator is entitled to his fee as per the statutory provision of Section 34, sub-section (8) and (9) read with Regulation 4 of Liquidation Regulations, 2016.
(iv) No fee can be charged from the Scheme Proponent, who has submitted the Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Regulation 2B of Liquidation Regulations, 2016.
(v) Cost incurred with regard to compromise or arrangement has to be borne by the Corporate Debtor or Scheme Proponent.

No Liquidator’s fee can be charged from Scheme Proponent, who has submitted Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement under Sec. 230 of Companies Act, 2013 | Liquidator is entitled to his fee under Sec. 34 & Liquidation Regulation 4 and Cost under Regulation 2B – CA Jai Narayan Gupta (Liquidator of Barcle Enterprises Limited) v. Radhasiriya Properties Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can Adjudicating Authority reduce the fee of a Resolution Professional – India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile RP of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Can Adjudicating Authority reduce the fee of a Resolution Professional – India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile RP of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

IBC does not envisage any intervention by Adjudicating Authority in day-to-day running of business operations of Corporate Debtor – M/s International Fresh Farm Products India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sumat Kumar Gupta, RP – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that the issues that are being agitated by the suspended director which relate to the business operations of the corporate debtor, should have been raised first in the Coc meetings. Nothing in this regard has been stated by either parties during the proceedings. The Code mandates the CoC to take the decision with regard to the running of the business of the corporate debtor as per its commercial wisdom with the object to maximise the value of the corporate debtor. The Code does not envisage any intervention by this Adjudicating Authority in the commercial decisions and day-to-day running of the corporate debtor.

IBC does not envisage any intervention by Adjudicating Authority in day-to-day running of business operations of Corporate Debtor – M/s International Fresh Farm Products India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sumat Kumar Gupta, RP – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top