9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if, the Appellant who was the Respondent before it was not present. In such circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to take a decision afresh after giving an opportunity to the Appellant and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances which we have been narrated on the basis of the record. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application, which is hereby restored, by passing speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 381 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2023 - [ Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce there were some talks of settlement between the parties were going on, therefore, I.A. No. 26 of 2021 was filed, at the instance of the Appellant, for withdrawal of the CIRP on the ground that the settlement had arrived at. However, during the pendency of said application, the Appellant submitted that there is no settlement, therefore, I.A. No. 26 of 2021 was not pressed and was allowed to be withdrawn. The Adjudicating Authority passed the following orders on 13.07.2021: - Since IRP is not proceeding with the CIRP in spite of the fact that there is no stay on CIRP, we replace IRP by appointing Mr. Rajubhai Patel, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00031/2017- 18/10259 (having email id: [email protected], Mobile No. 982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which shall be reimbursed by the committee to the extent it ratifies. It is submitted that as per explanation appended to Regulation 33 expenses include the fee to be paid to the interim resolution professional. It is further submitted that in the first meeting of the CoC a resolution was passed in regard to the payment of Rs. 2 lakh to the newly appointed IRP which was resolved by e-voting in the following manner:- Resolved That remuneration as professional fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month (plus applicable taxes) be and is hereby approved to the IRP, Mr. Rajubhai Patel, (IBBI/IPA-003/2017-18/10259) in the CIRP of Cooltech Containers Pvt. Ltd. 7. The main argument raised by Counsel for the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oday at the time of hearing. Therefore, the Respondent is proceeded against ex-parte. 11. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and after perusal of the record, are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in this case is as to whether the Appellant shall be held liable to pay the cost/fee of the IRP on the ground that the claim of the Appellant has not been admitted by the IRP and has been directed to pay entire fee of the IRP despite the fact that the member of the CoC are the Financial Creditors. 12. Keeping in view the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has passed a cryptic order without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
