9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was expressly approved by the COC is maintainable? - Who will decide the fees, if any, due to applicant- erstwhile Resolution Professional as the COC has not been made a party to the application? HELD THAT:- In the present case, in the absence of any order from this Adjudicating Authority appointing a liquidator, the applicant s continuation as a RP is not in contravention of any provisions of IBC - respondent s contention that no fees is payable for the extended period as the same was not ratified by the CoC is untenable. In view of the fact that in the present case, company is already under liquidation, the liquidator is directed to disburse the professional fee of RP at the rate approved by CoC for the period from 21.12.2018 to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is stated that this Adjudicating Authority appointed Mr. Sameer Rastogi as Interim Resolution Professional vide order dated 21.03.2018. Further, on 2nd CoC meeting dated 03.05.2018, in pursuance of Section 22(3)(a) of I B Code, 2016, CoC had decided to appoint IRP Mr. Sameer Rastogi as Resolution Professional to conduct the CIRP and resolved to pay a professional fee of Rs. 4,00,000/- and other expenses. The relevant item 8 of the CoC meeting is extracted hereinbelow: FURTHER RESOLVED THAT during CIRP or any extension thereof, the professional fee of the Resolution Professional of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs per month plus applicable taxes, be and is hereby approved in the matter of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Tara Chand Rice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers of CoC a party in the present application. 3.2 It is further submitted that the Liquidator had forwarded the request made by the applicant-erstwhile Resolution Professional for the release of unpaid due to the members of CoC, however, no response was given to that effect. 3.3 The respondent submitted that in the instant matter CIRP expired on 11.09.2018 and extension of 90 days also expired on 10.12.2018. Also, for the remaining period no fee was ratified by the CoC. 4. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the applicant and respondent-Liquidator. In the case in hand, the issues for adjudication are (1)Whether the present application for the payment to the Resolution Professional for the period bey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointing a liquidator, the applicant s continuation as a RP is not in contravention of any provisions of IBC. We draw support from the order of Hon ble NCLAT on almost similar facts in the case of CoC M/s. Smartec Build Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B. Santosh Babu Ors. [2020] ibclaw.in 10 NCLAT held as follows Admittedly, Mr. B. Santosh Babu performed the duty of the Interim Resolution Professional and constituted the Committee of Creditors and thereafter, continued to function even beyond 30 days with designation of the Interim Resolution Professional and as he moved an application for liquidation (though designated continue as Interim Resolution Professional ), we agree with the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
