Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (4) TMI 538 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of Liquidator's Remuneration
2. Jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT
3. Applicability of Liquidation Process Regulations

Summary:

1. Fixation of Liquidator's Remuneration:
The appellant, liquidator of M/s SRS Limited, filed an appeal against the NCLT Chandigarh's order dated 18.04.2023, seeking fixation of his remuneration. The liquidator requested remuneration at Rs. 4 lakh + GST monthly from 29.01.2020 to 31.05.2022 and Rs. 2 lakh + GST per month from 01.06.2022 till the closure of the liquidation process. The liquidator argued that due to the attachment of assets by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Income Tax Department, he was unable to sell the corporate debtor's assets and hence could not earn fees as per Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Liquidation Process Regulations. Despite his efforts to lift the attachment and manage the corporate debtor's affairs, the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) decided that fees would be paid as per Regulation 4(2)(b).

2. Jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT:
The liquidator cited Section 60(5)(c) of IBC 2016 and the Supreme Court's decision in Alok Kaushik v. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan, asserting that NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings. The respondent argued that the issue of monthly remuneration does not fall within the ambit of Section 60(5) and that the liquidator's fee should be determined by the SCC as per Regulation 4(2)(b).

3. Applicability of Liquidation Process Regulations:
The Tribunal examined the relevant regulations and amendments. It was noted that prior to the amendment on 25.07.2019, Regulation 4(2) allowed the liquidator to be paid a percentage of the amount realized and distributed. The Tribunal found that the fees of the liquidator should be as per the percentage prescribed in Regulation 4(2)(b) on realization and distribution of proceeds from the auction of assets, as no fees were fixed by the CoC under Regulation 39D of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the liquidator's applications for monthly remuneration. The appeal was dismissed, and it was concluded that the liquidator's fees should be determined as per Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates