9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 279 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPayment of fees to IRP - demand raised on the ground that the claim of the Appellant has not been admitted by the IRP and has been directed to pay entire fee of the IRP despite the fact that the member of the CoC are the Financial Creditors - if the claim of the Appellant (Operational Creditor) is not even taken into consideration by the IRP then on what ground the CoC is burdening the present Appellant with the Cost/Fee to be paid to the IRP? - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority has passed a cryptic order without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if, the Appellant who was the Respondent before it was not present. In such circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to take a decision afresh after giving an opportunity to the Appellant and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances which we have been narrated on the basis of the record. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application, which is hereby restored, by passing speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the Appellant to pay the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) despite the non-admission of the Appellant's claim by the IRP. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to pay IRP fee despite non-admission of claim The appeal was against an order directing the Appellant to pay the fee of the IRP within two weeks. The Appellant had filed a petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Corporate Debtor. Initially, an advance payment was made to the IRP for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Subsequently, due to talks of settlement, an application for withdrawal of CIRP was filed but later withdrawn as no settlement was reached. The Adjudicating Authority replaced the IRP due to non-proceedings in CIRP. A later application by the RP claimed a fee, which the Appellant failed to represent, resulting in an ex-parte order challenged in the appeal. The Appellant argued that as per Regulation 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, the Applicant should fix the IRP's expenses, which should be reimbursed by the committee upon ratification. The Appellant emphasized that expenses included the fee to be paid to the IRP. A CoC resolution approved a fee for the newly appointed IRP. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider that the IRP did not accept the Appellant's claim, questioning the basis for burdening the Appellant with the IRP's fee. The Tribunal found the impugned order non-speaking and lacking reasons, especially since the Appellant was proceeded against ex-parte. The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider crucial facts and circumstances. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the Appellant and considering all relevant aspects. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the application, providing an opportunity for a hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on a specified date for further proceedings.
|
