2021 (12) TMI 1273 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking to release the outstanding fee of Liquidator during which the Applicant has discharged his functions - HELD THAT - There are force with the contention of the Applicant/erstwhile liquidator. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the directions given by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2020 while passing the liquidation order, we deem it appropriate to allow this application and direct that the Applicant is entitled to get his fees during the period he functioned as the Liquidator. It is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent no. 1 to 5, who are the Members of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee to pay a sum of ₹ 75000/- per month to the present applicant/erstwhile Liquidator for the period 06.01.2020 to 06.01.2021 during which he worked as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for outstanding fee by erstwhile liquidator.
2. Dispute over payment of professional fee and expenses.
3. Interpretation of liquidator's entitlement to fees.
4. Impact of NCLAT order on liquidation process and fee entitlement.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed by the former liquidator seeking directions for the release of outstanding fees for the period he served as the liquidator. The respondent, the present liquidator, contested the claim stating that the fee structure was decided in CoC meetings and that most expenses had been settled except for a few pending ones.

2. The Tribunal noted that the former liquidator had fulfilled his duties and incurred expenses during his tenure. The respondent liquidator had reimbursed significant expenses, and the CoC had not mandated monthly fees in recent meetings. However, the former liquidator argued that due to an NCLAT order restricting asset liquidation, he should not be denied his fees.

3. Referring to the liquidator's entitlement to fees as per regulations, the Tribunal acknowledged the former liquidator's service and the impact of the NCLAT order on his ability to liquidate assets. Considering these factors, the Tribunal directed the stakeholders to pay the former liquidator a monthly sum as part of his overall remuneration for the period he served as the liquidator.

4. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the former liquidator's inability to liquidate assets due to the NCLAT order, ensuring he was not unfairly deprived of his fees. By interpreting the regulations and considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal balanced the interests of all parties involved, ultimately granting the former liquidator his entitled fees for the period in question.