9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 13 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The statement of CIRP cost were filed along with the Petition, which says the total CIRP cost is ₹ 37,85,728/- out of which, only ₹ 8 Lakhs towards Interim Resolution Professional fees, ₹ 2,95,000/- towards Resolution Professional (Respondent) and advertisement cost of ₹ 1,36,000/- was paid and the remaining balance of ₹ 25,54,728/- was not paid. Therefore it is not the case of the Applicant alone that the entire claims towards various services rendered during CIRP was not paid. Moreover it is not in dispute that ₹ 50,000/- was paid each of said the valuers, which include the Applicant herein, towards the expenses incurred by them. Since the Hon'ble NCLAT set-aside the order of this Adjudicating Authority and this Hon'ble Tribunal also passed order consequently with regard to the CIRP cost, this Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain this Application and it became functous officio. The instant Application is not maintainable and also lack merits - Application dismissed.
Issues involved:
Delay in preferring application, Payment dispute for valuation exercise fee, Allegations against Resolution Professional, Maintaining statutory duties. Delay in preferring application: The Applicant sought condonation for delay due to the Resolution Professional's failure to inform about missing CIRP costs and COVID-19 restrictions. The Resolution Professional assured payment but later informed about non-release by COC, leading to the delay. The Respondent argued that the delay was unjustified as expenses were reimbursed as per COC decision, and hence, the application should be dismissed. Payment dispute for valuation exercise fee: The Applicant requested the Respondent to pay ?6,50,000 plus GST for valuation exercise, as per the appointment letter. The Respondent claimed that only actual expenses were reimbursed as per COC decision, and the request for additional fees was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in payment claims and rejected the application for lack of merit. Allegations against Resolution Professional: The Applicant accused the Resolution Professional of malicious intent and actions, causing delay in preferring the application. The Respondent clarified the sequence of events leading to the cancellation of valuers' appointment based on NCLAT's order. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations and suggested approaching IBBI for resolution. Maintaining statutory duties: The Tribunal highlighted the Resolution Professional's compliance with NCLAT's order regarding CIRP costs and actions. It emphasized that the Applicant's claims were part of the overall CIRP costs and advised seeking recourse through IBBI for any grievances against the Respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the application lacked merit and was not maintainable, thereby rejecting it. This comprehensive analysis covers the issues related to delay in application, payment dispute, allegations against the Resolution Professional, and maintaining statutory duties as addressed in the legal judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru Bench.
|
