9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 157 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection for fixation of fees of the applicant/IRP for the period from 19.10.2019 till 07.01.2020 - seeking to decide about the person liable to pay the said fee of the IRP and also to decide the person who will pay the expenses incurred during the CIRP period - HELD THAT - The expenses of ₹ 83,032/- made during 19/09/2019 to 17.10.2019 and the fee for the IRP as ₹ 1,25,000/- (approved and ratified) were paid to the IRP. Further the fee of the IRP has already been ratified by the CoC for ₹ 1,25,000/- per month plus applicable taxes and the expenses of ₹ 97,028/- made during 17.10.2019 to 11.12.2019 were ratified in the 3rd CoC meeting dated 13.12.2019. The IRP has also placed on records documents for expense of ₹ 88,474/- made during 12.12.2019 to 07.01.2020 however, the same could not be ratified as the CIRP was set aside and CoC meeting could not be conducted for the same. The Applicant who has filed the application under Section 7 or 9 of the Code i.e. Respondent No. 3 in the present application is liable to bear all the expenses as explained in sub-regulation 4 of Regulation 33, and he can get the amount reimbursed by the Committee of Creditors i.e. Respondent No. 1. Hence, the IRP shall be paid his profession fee i.e. ₹ 1,25,000/- per month plus taxes and all expenses from 17.10.2019 to 07.01.2020. Application is allowed and disposed of.
Issues:
1. Fixing fees of the IRP for the CIRP period and determining the person liable to pay. 2. Approval of expenses incurred by the IRP during the CIRP. 3. Replacement of the IRP with a new Resolution Professional. 4. Disagreement over the professional fee of the IRP. 5. Expenses incurred on professionals appointed by the IRP. 6. Responsibility of the Applicant to bear the expenses as per Regulation 33. Analysis: 1. The IRP filed an application seeking to fix fees for the CIRP period. The CoC approved expenses incurred by the IRP and ratified a fee of &8377; 1,25,000. However, disagreement arose over the proposed fee of &8377; 4,00,000 per month, leading to the replacement of the IRP. 2. The Respondent No. 1 objected to the IRP's proposed fee, citing financial constraints of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent proposed a lower fee for the new RP, leading to a resolution for the appointment of a new RP with reduced remuneration. 3. The Respondent No. 1 raised concerns over the appointment of professionals by the IRP at high costs without CoC approval. The Respondent highlighted that the appointment of professionals was unnecessary during ongoing proceedings. 4. The Respondent No. 1 criticized the IRP for failing to provide complete details of work done by appointed professionals, questioning the genuineness of bills and invoices presented without approval. 5. Referring to Regulation 33, the Tribunal clarified the responsibility of the Applicant to bear expenses initially, which could be reimbursed by the CoC. The Tribunal noted the expenses approved by the CoC and directed payment of the IRP's fee and expenses for the specified period. 6. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the Applicant's liability to bear expenses incurred by the IRP, subject to CoC ratification. The Tribunal ordered payment of the IRP's fee and expenses, in line with CoC approvals and regulations. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application, directing the Applicant to bear the IRP's fee and expenses as approved by the CoC, emphasizing compliance with Regulation 33 and previous legal precedents.
|
