9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lution of the CoC which could be decided by the Adjudicating Authority only on 24th February, 2022. The Adjudicating Authority after approving the replacement issued direction in paragraph 12 to the following:- "Accordingly, I.A. No. 341/2021 is disposed of with the following directions: a. Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, Resolution Professional, shall hand over the entire record and the assets of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst meeting after the replacement of Resolution Professional." 4. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate for the Appellant submits that there was no occasion for issuing direction to reconstituted CoC to consider the CIRP fees of the Appellant which having already been approved in the earlier CoC meeting held on 17th May, 2021. 5. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 7. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate further submits that in view of the Regulation 12 (3) proviso, the decision taken by CoC could not affect the validity of any decision taken by the Committee. Regulation 12 of CIRP Regulation, 2016 is as follows: "12. Submission of proof of claims. (1) Subject to sub-regulation (2), a creditor shall submit 21[claim with proof] on or before the last date ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the validity of such decision cannot be questioned subsequently. In the CIRP process, the CoC is fully competent to revise the fee even if it was earlier approved by any earlier CoC decision. The entitlement of fee depends on several factors including the change of circumstances, the length of CIRP proceeding hence we are of the view that Regulation 12(3) proviso does not fetter the CoC to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
