2019 (9) TMI 842 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Admissibility of application - Initiation of CIRP - Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, we accept the terms of settlement and set-aside the impugned order dated 4th December, 2018. So far as the fee and cost of the Resolution Professional is concerned, the Corporate Debtor will pay a sum of ₹ 3.5 lakhs in favour of Resolution Professional within three weeks, failing which, it will be open to the Resolution Professional to bring the same to the notice of this Appellate Tribunal. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor.
2. Settlement reached before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors.
3. Claims and fees of the Resolution Professional.
4. Request for the Corporate Debtor to exit from the Resolution Process.
5. Acceptance of terms of settlement and setting aside the impugned order.
6. Payment of fees and costs to the Resolution Professional.
7. Setting aside of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and release of the Respondent Company from the proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where an Operational Creditor filed against the Corporate Debtor, which was admitted on December 4, 2018, leading to an appeal by the Director of the Corporate Debtor.

2. Prior to the constitution of the Committee of Creditors, a settlement was reached between the parties on June 26, 2019. However, the Resolution Professional was not present during the proceedings, leading to an adjournment for their appearance.

3. The Resolution Professional, represented by Mr. Apoorv Shukla, claimed costs incurred and a fee amounting to a total of &8377; 3,50,000. The Corporate Debtor expressed readiness to pay these costs and fees to the Resolution Professional if allowed to exit from the Resolution Process.

4. Considering the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal, in the exercise of powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, accepted the terms of settlement and set aside the impugned order dated December 4, 2018.

5. Regarding the fees and costs of the Resolution Professional, the Corporate Debtor was directed to pay &8377; 3.5 lakhs within three weeks. Failure to comply would allow the Resolution Professional to bring the matter to the attention of the Appellate Tribunal.

6. The orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, including the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional and the declaration of moratorium, were set aside. The application under Section 9 of the I&B Code was disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the Respondent Company to function independently through its Board of Directors.

7. The appeal was allowed with the mentioned observations and directions, with no costs imposed on any party involved in the proceedings.