2021 (8) TMI 1265 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Constitution of Committee of Creditors - HELD THAT - It is clarified that the matter is adjourned only to ascertain who will represent the Appellant. However, Ld. Counsel Mr. Sharma is not satisfied and interrupting in dictating the order sheet and not ready to maintain the decorum of the Tribunal. Let the matter be fixed on 16th August, 2021, for personal appearance of the Appellant to ascertain who will represent the Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC) and its impact on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Non-payment of fees by the Appellant and engagement of another Advocate
3. Conduct of the Appellant's Counsel during the proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC) and CIRP
The judgment clarifies that interim protection was granted on 22.02.2021, stating that if the CoC had not been constituted, the CIRP would be put on hold. However, it was revealed that the CoC had already been constituted before the mentioned date. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed that the CIRP would continue as per the order dated 22.02.2021. This decision underscores the significance of the CoC in the insolvency resolution process and the impact of its timely constitution on the proceedings.

Issue 2: Non-payment of fees by the Appellant
The Appellant's Counsel, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, informed the Tribunal that the Appellant had not paid his fees and had engaged another Advocate without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC). Consequently, Mr. Sharma requested an adjournment of two weeks. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for a week, directing the Appellant to be present in person through virtual mode on the next date to determine who would represent the Appellant. This highlights the importance of compliance with fee payment obligations and the proper engagement of legal representation in insolvency proceedings.

Issue 3: Conduct of the Appellant's Counsel
During the proceedings, Mr. Sharma, the Appellant's Counsel, repeatedly interrupted and insisted on a two-week adjournment, despite the Tribunal's clarification that the adjournment was solely to ascertain the representation of the Appellant. Mr. Sharma's conduct was deemed unsatisfactory, with the Tribunal observing a lack of satisfaction on his part with the bench. Consequently, the matter was scheduled to be listed before another Bench on 16th August 2021 for the personal appearance of the Appellant to determine legal representation. This decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining decorum and professionalism in legal proceedings before the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses key issues related to the constitution of the CoC, non-payment of fees by the Appellant, and the conduct of the Appellant's Counsel. It underscores the procedural requirements and expectations in insolvency resolution processes, highlighting the significance of timely compliance, proper engagement of legal representation, and adherence to decorum during proceedings before the Tribunal.