ONE PAGE 31 – Surendra Steel Sales V Immortal Buildcon Pvt Ltd
CIRP terminated when IRP fee not paid by the Sec 9 Applicant
Court: NCLT Delhi Bench AT# 1152/2019
1. Background:
a. Section 9 Application admitted, CIRP initiated and IRP appointed.
b. OC says that he proposed a fee of only Rs.1/-lac including all expenses till the first meeting of COC. IRP denied the same, but even that amount of Rs1 lac as not paid by OC.
c. No other claims except for the claim of Section 9 applicant were received by the IRP.
d. First COC meeting was conducted with the sole CoC member, i.e. the Sec 9 Applicant and from then Second COC meeting was being postponed at the instance of OC/COC on the grounds of a possible settlement between the OC & CD.
e. No progress has been made in CIRP. OC has been in settlement talks with the CD and is therefore not interested in taking any steps to proceed with the CIRP.
2. NCLAT Evaluation & Judgment:
a. Sole member of COC (OC) is not interested in prosecuting the CIRP, hence it would be expedient to terminate the CIRP.
b. CIRP is terminated and the Corporate Debtor is released from the rigors of moratorium and permitted to function through its own board.
c. The Section 7 applicant failed to reimburse the expenses & fee and also wasted the time of NCLT. Cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the OC to be paid Prime Minister Relief Fund and failure to remit that amount shall make the OC liable for contempt.
d. With reference to IRP fee & his reimbursement, referred the matter to IBBI to fix the remuneration of IRP in proportion to the work done and claim made.
Disclaimer: The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s). The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in). The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of the information existing at the time of the preparation. The author(s) and IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in) do not take responsibility of the same. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.