2017 (10) TMI 1482 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Fee payable to the Interim Resolution Professional - HELD THAT - There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order whereby the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional has been fixed. Review/rectification of order - HELD THAT - The said application is not maintainable in this appeal. In absence of any error apparent on the face of the record and in absence of any new facts brought to our notice, the question of reviewing the order does not arise.

Summary

Issues: Fee determination for Interim Resolution Professional, Review application against previous order.

Fee determination for Interim Resolution Professional:
The judgment pertains to the fee determination of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 31st August, 2017, fixed the fee of the IRP in accordance with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 2nd August, 2017. The proceedings against the appellant, a Corporate Debtor, were set aside in the previous order, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to determine the fee payable to the IRP. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and the IRP, found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order fixing the fee of the IRP. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the fee determination process for the IRP as per the directives of the Appellate Tribunal.

Review application against previous order:
Regarding the review application against the order dated 2nd August, 2017, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 104 of 2017, the judgment clarifies that the said application is not maintainable in the current appeal. The Appellate Tribunal emphasizes that for a review to be considered, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record or new facts brought to their notice. In the absence of such circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal concludes that there is no basis for reviewing the previous order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the application for review is also dismissed. The judgment underscores the stringent criteria for allowing review applications and the need for clear grounds to justify a review of a previous order.

In conclusion, the judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addresses the fee determination for the Interim Resolution Professional and the review application against a previous order. It emphasizes the importance of following directives regarding fee fixation for the IRP and sets a high threshold for permitting review applications, requiring errors on record or new facts to be presented. The decision provides clarity on these legal aspects within the context of insolvency proceedings, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to established guidelines.