9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant, in regard to the Fees required by him and the plea of the Respondent is not moonshine, this Tribunal, at this juncture, simpliciter deems it fit that directing the Appellant to resort to approach the Competent Forum for redressal of its grievances, in regard to the amount, claimed by the Appellant, for the services rendered, if he so desires / advised. This Tribunal is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2023 - [ Justice M. Venugopal ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Shreesha Merla ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Muralikrishnan , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Yasar Arafat , Advocate ORDER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is not maintainable under the provisions of Code, it would be just and proper for the Respondent to consider the claim of Petitioner at least to pay for some advolreum amount by taking into consideration of principle of good Corporate governance, as the Petitioner is senior Citizen having rendered substantial service to the Company at Crucial time. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances of case, even though the instant Petition is not maintainable, as per law, we are inclined to dispose the Petition by exercising inherent powers conferred on the Adjudicating Authority, Under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, in the interest of justice, with directions as mentioned below. 10. In the result, C.P. (I.B) No.128/BB/2020, is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd by the Appellant , is that, after finding that reimbursement of Travelling Expenses , would not an amount of payment to Professional Fee , and the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), had incorrectly dismissed the main Petition. 5. Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner / Operational Creditor , points out that the Fee for Professional Services , constituted as an Operational Debt; and the Invoice was not appreciated in proper Direction by the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) and hence, the impugned order order dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020 came to be passed, causing serious prejudice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent had paid a sum of Rs.10,67,208/- in respect of the Services rendered by the Appellant and his Associates (including a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, paid by the Respondent, pursuant to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) on 26.06.2020. 11. To put it precisely, according to the Respondent , the Appellant was paid, for services rendered on numerous dates , is a sum of Rs.9,67,208/-. 12. In fact, the crystalline stand of the Respondent is that the Appellant was paid with a total sum of Rs.10,67,208/-. 13. Considering the fact that the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a summary proceeding and the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the Proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
