9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorised to seek direction from the Adjudicating Authority to pay the professional fee. Under such circumstances, the application is had in the eye of law. Further, it is also a matter of record that ₹ 4,19,719/- is paid as Insurance Premium without the approval of COC, though the Applicant has enough time in his hand and now at this belated stage agitating the issue when the Resolution Plan is already approved by this Adjudicating Authority. Under such circumstances, when the COC has already been dissolved and RP has also been discharged from his duties, the claim so made by the Applicant is not maintainable - Application not maintainable and is dismissed. - IA 234 of 2020 In IA 232/2020 in C.P.(IB) No. 594/NCLT/AHM/2018 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor vide order dated 26.04.2019 passed by this Bench in C.P.(I.B) No. 594/2018. Upon appointment of the Applicant as IRP, the Applicant made a public announcement in the newspaper as per the provision of IBC and the Rules framed thereunder and in view of such public announcement, the Applicant received the claims of Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor and has prepared a report on 22.05.2019. Subsequently, revised report on 30.05.2020. 3. It is further submitted that the Applicant being IRP of the Corporate Debtor has duly submitted report dated 22.05.2020 and 30.05.2020 certifying constitution of COC, as per Regulation 17(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of india (Insolvency Resolution Processfor Corporate Perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Company Limited) has been deducted from the professional fee of the IRP i.e. the Applicant herein. On receipt of such E-mail, the Applicant sent an E-mail on 13.02.2020 seeking clarification from the Company Secretary with regard to the deduction of ₹ 4,19,719/-. The Applicant further submitted that the DGM, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide its E-mail dated 13.02.2020 reiterated and reconfirmed their stand regarding their initial quote submitted in the name of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., stating that the same was not approved by the competent authorities. The Applicant submitted that the Applicant has performed his professional duties from 26.04.2019 till 03.01.2020 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the 11th COC meeting, which states clearly that COC has disapproved the claim of Chartered Accountant, Mr. Hiten Parikh and V-Can and Co. 10. it is further submitted that the Resolution Plan was already approved, thus, the instant IA is infructuous, as the COC is dissolved and the RP has no locus standi and/or authority to call for the COC for approval or disapproval of any expenses, which are not ratified or approved or placed before the COC for its approval. 11. It is further submitted that in the instant matter, the RP has placed the bills of CA, Mr. Hiten Parikh and V-Can Co., which was already rejected in the 11 th COC meeting. Thus, the COC is not liable to make payment to the IRP, as these bills are not approved. 12. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority. 14. It is further alleged that IRP has been consistently working beyond his authority and appointing agencies whose services have not been approved by COC and committing expenses, details of which are given herein below: i. M/s Vcan Co. for scrutinizing Resolution Plan with a fee of ₹ 50,000/- per application/EOI received, committing huge avoidable expenses of over three lacs+GST. ii. Payment to Company Secretary iii. Appointment of Person Counsel/Advocate. 15. Thus, deduction of ₹ 4,19,719/- was fully justified as due to negligence of IRP and delay in making of excess payment without approval of the COC. The said excess amount was paid due to delay in obtaining quote from the Insurance Companies and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
