9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1075 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Appellant submitted that the Appellant has settled the claim with the Respondent - Operational Creditor and Committee of Creditors has not been constituted - HELD THAT - The Committee of Creditors has not been constituted, which is also accepted by learned counsel for the Interim Resolution Professional. Interim Resolution Professional having worked for about 20 days, has already incurred cost against publication of notice - ₹ 15,000/- approx., engagement of lawyer - ₹ 1/- lakh approx., travelling expenses - ₹ 50,000/- approx., therefore, we assess the total fee and cost of the Interim Resolution Professional at ₹ 2.75/- lakh. However we round it up at ₹ 3.00 lakh. The Interim Resolution Professional having already paid a sum of ₹ 2 lakh, the Appellant will pay another sum of ₹ 1 lakh to the Interim Resolution Professional immediately but not later than 15 days. Application is disposed off as withdrawn.
Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 2. Settlement of claim between the Appellant and the Respondent. 3. Payment of fees and costs to the Interim Resolution Professional. 4. Constitution of Committee of Creditors. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal considered an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor. The National Company Law Tribunal had admitted the application, leading to a challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Appellant and the Respondent had settled the claim. The Committee of Creditors had not been constituted at the time of settlement. The Interim Resolution Professional also confirmed that the claim had been settled and dues were paid before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. 3. The Interim Resolution Professional raised concerns about unpaid fees and costs incurred during the process. The Appellate Tribunal assessed the total fee and cost of the Interim Resolution Professional at ?3.00 lakh, out of which ?2.00 lakh had already been paid. The Tribunal ordered the Appellant to pay the remaining sum of ?1.00 lakh to the Interim Resolution Professional within 15 days. 4. Noting that the parties had settled the matter, the Appellate Tribunal invoked Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, and referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, disposed of the application under Section 9 as withdrawn, and released the Corporate Debtor from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 5. The Tribunal directed the Interim Resolution Professional to hand over all records and assets of the Corporate Debtor immediately. However, failure to pay the outstanding amount of ?1.00 lakh within the specified timeframe would result in the present order being recalled, potentially leading to the revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 6. Ultimately, the Appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned observations and actions, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
