2019 (1) TMI 1785 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Reimbursement of the initial cost of ₹ 2.5 Lakhs for enabling the IRP to continue with the CIRP - HELD THAT - IRP on 16/08/2018 informed this Adjudicating Authority that Committee of Creditors in the first meeting dated 09/08/2018 did not approve his name as Resolution Professional and showed their unwillingness to continue with the CIRP process because winding up proceedings has been initiated at the instance of the Financial Creditor before the Hon'ble High Court at Cuttack. Accordingly, he filed his final report and thereafter he did not convene any meeting so as to ascertain the assets of the Corporate Debtor and could not proceed further and filed its report. The report is with the files. Reserved for orders since there is no request for extension of period of CIRP u/s. 12 of the Code.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reimbursement of initial cost for CIRP
2. Approval of Resolution Professional by Committee of Creditors
3. Winding up proceedings initiated by Financial Creditor
4. Request for reimbursement by Operational Creditor
5. Initiation of CIRP by Operational Creditor
6. Consideration of another application
7. Extension of period of CIRP under Section 12 of the Code

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of reimbursement of the initial cost of ?2.5 Lakhs for enabling the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to continue with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Operational Creditor filed an application seeking reimbursement, but the IRP informed that the Committee of Creditors did not approve his name as Resolution Professional, leading to the cessation of CIRP proceedings due to winding up proceedings initiated by the Financial Creditor before the High Court. The IRP filed a final report and did not proceed further with the CIRP.

2. The Committee of Creditors' refusal to approve the IRP as the Resolution Professional was a crucial aspect discussed in the judgment. This decision impacted the ability to carry out the CIRP effectively. The Tribunal noted the Operational Creditor's request for reimbursement and the Financial Creditor's stance that since the CIRP was initiated by the Operational Creditor, no reimbursement was warranted.

3. The initiation of the CIRP by the Operational Creditor and the subsequent developments regarding the Committee of Creditors' decision and the Financial Creditor's actions were central to the case. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Operational Creditor and the State Bank of India, emphasizing the need for clarity on the reimbursement issue amidst the winding up proceedings initiated by the Financial Creditor.

4. Another application, CA(IB) No. 1183/KB/2018, was brought before the Tribunal for consideration during the proceedings. The Financial Creditor was heard, and the matter was reserved for further orders, indicating the complexity and multiple facets of the case requiring detailed examination.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and noting the absence of a request for an extension of the period of CIRP under Section 12 of the Code, reserved the final orders. This decision highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and the need for a comprehensive resolution of all pending issues before concluding the matter effectively.