IRP/RP-IRP/RP Fee

Tribunal directs CoC to take necessary action in regard to reimbursing all the fees due including the CIRP costs and Professionals’ fees incurred by the Resolution Professional – Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that it is obvious that an Insolvency Professional who is engaged to perform his/her duty as a Resolution Professional is entitled to be remunerated by way of paying fees for his labour and work and accordingly the fees and expenses are to be approved by the COC.

Tribunal directs CoC to take necessary action in regard to reimbursing all the fees due including the CIRP costs and Professionals’ fees incurred by the Resolution Professional – Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

NCLAT dismisses the Contempt Petition filed by a Resolution Professional against the Members of NCLT – Ashok Kriplani Vs. T. Krishna Valli and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

An Ex-Resolution Professional filed a contempt petition on the ground that the initiation of CIRP against a project of the Corporate Debtor was undertaken while fees related to another project of the same Corporate Debtor remained unpaid. The contempt petition was filed against Members of the Adjudicating Authority, Ms. T. Krishna Valli, Member (Judicial), NCLT, Kochi Bench, and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical), NCLT Bengaluru Bench.

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that while admitting a Section 7 application filed by Financial Creditors in a class, no contempt could be said to have been committed by the Adjudicating Authority, which was exercising its statutory jurisdiction under Section 7 of the IBC. Consequently, the Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the contempt petition filed against the Members of the NCLT.

NCLAT dismisses the Contempt Petition filed by a Resolution Professional against the Members of NCLT – Ashok Kriplani Vs. T. Krishna Valli and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to proceed for computation of fee and expense of a Resolution Professional – Khozim Yusuf Nagarwala Vs. Satyendra Prasad Khorania Erstwhile RP of Raj Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that insofar as jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to determine the fees and expenses, we are not agreeable with the submission of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed for computation of fee and expenses. When the Appellate Tribunal has specifically directed that Financial Creditor is liable to pay the CIRP cost and fees which was to be reported to the Adjudicating Authority and which was to be determined, the Adjudicating Authority has ample jurisdiction to proceed to examine the entitlement of the fee and expenses.

Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to proceed for computation of fee and expense of a Resolution Professional – Khozim Yusuf Nagarwala Vs. Satyendra Prasad Khorania Erstwhile RP of Raj Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Promoter/Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor have no locus standi in regard to CIRP Costs, the said issue is only between a Resolution Professional and CoC and NCLT/NCLAT is not empowered to have the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine all controversies, touching upon the formation/members/constitution of SRA – Mr. G. Balasubramaniam Vs. CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar RP for GBJ Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) A Trust can furnish the Resolution Plan and a Trust can be a Resolution Applicant.
(ii) It is not out of place for this Tribunal, to make a pertinent mention, that Section 3(23)(d) of the Code, under the caption person includes Trust and the General Clauses Act defines person includes Trust.
(iii) An Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal is not to determine the matters, pertaining to a ‘disputed question of fact’. It must be borne in mind, that Section 60(5) of the Code, 2016 is not an all pervasive section, showering jurisdiction, to the Appellate Authority/Tribunal to determine any question pertaining to the Corporate Debtor.
(iv) If a law, is laid down under the Code, 2016, to do a ‘particular act’ in a ‘certain manner’, an Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal cannot exercise this jurisdiction, under sub-Section (2) Section 60 of the Code, to override the specification already mentioned in the Code, by giving interpretation, quite contra, to the mandate, in the particular section.
(v) In regard to CIRP costs, the Appellants’ have no locus standi, because of the fact that the said issue is only between a Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors.
(vi) One cannot remain in oblivion of the prime fact that nowhere in the code or in the Regulations, there is a specification that the Resolution Applications is to match the Liquidation value, of the Corporate Debtor.

Promoter/Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor have no locus standi in regard to CIRP Costs, the said issue is only between a Resolution Professional and CoC and NCLT/NCLAT is not empowered to have the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine all controversies, touching upon the formation/members/constitution of SRA – Mr. G. Balasubramaniam Vs. CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar RP for GBJ Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top