9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal sequence of events of the present case, put briefly, is that the Appellant, Shri Alok Kaushik, was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional, ("IRP" in short) of M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) which came under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP" in short) in pursuance of a Section 9 application of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC" in short). Following a settlement between the Operational Creditor and suspended management of the Corporate Debtor, the IRP filed an application vide I.A. No.510/2021 before the Adjudicating Authority, inter-alia, seeking approval of CIRP withdrawal application filed under Section 12-A of the IBC; discharge from duties as IRP and for payment of actual expenses incurred by him as IRP. The Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order dated 30.05.2022 while allowing the withdrawal application, discharged the IRP from his duties after modifying the reimbursement of expenses claimed by the IRP besides making certain remarks deprecating the conduct of IRP. The IRP, who in the meantime was confirmed as Resolution Professional, challenged the above impugned order before this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.896 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith 88.96% voting share in the 6th CoC meeting held on 28.03.2022 7. PVRN & Company (CA) Transaction Auditor on CIRP 106200 Exercise completed. Fees ratified by CoC with 100% voting share in 2nd CoC. 8. Hyoka Valuers Pvt. Ltd. Registered Valuers (P&M, L&B) 75000 Valuation exercise for L&B assets completed and report handed over to the RP. P&M work pending as directors not cooperating. CoC has ratified the fees with 100% share in the 2nd CoC. 9. R.K. Arora Registered Valuer (L&B) 34000 Valuation exercise of L&B assets completed and report submitted to the 'Resolution Professional'. CoC has ratified fees with 100% voting share in 2nd CoC. 10. Prateek Mittal Registered Valuer (SFA) 29500 Valuation exercise is pending as directors not handing over records and assets. CoC has ratified fees with 100% voting share in 2nd CoC. 11. Om Pal Yadav Registered Valuer (SFA) 40000 Valuation exercise is pending as directors not handing over records and assets. CoC has ratified fees with 100% voting share in 2nd CoC. 12. Deepak Mangal Registered Valuer (SFA) 29500 Valuation exercise is pending as directors not handing over records and assets. CoC has ratified fees with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, the payment towards his fees is restricted to Rs.2 Lakhs as we strongly disapprove his conduct in not pursuing the present application filed by himself only and unnecessarily adding to the costs by carrying out non-essential activities. In the result, the CIRP costs are allowed to the extent of Rs.8,36,001/- and the same is to be reimbursed by the corporate debtor i.e. M/s Cheema Spintex Limited." 5. It is noticed that in paragraph 14, the impugned order has enlisted a table of expenses comprising of 17 items which have been claimed by the IRP as incurred by him in the conduct of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Coming to paragraph 15 of the impugned order, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has analyzed the items of expenditure as furnished by the IRP and classified them into "essential and non-essential" categories. The Adjudicating Authority has admitted only 7 items as "essential". We find that there is no difference of opinion between the Adjudicating Authority and the IRP on the items of expenses which have been categorized as "essential". The Adjudicating Authority has allowed expenses incurred on the above stated essential activities amounting to Rs. 1,48,237/- besid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Adjudicating Authority are cogent and weighty because in the absence of the requisite documents/details/records, it could not have been expected for such an exercise to have been undertaken in the right earnest. We therefore find that the exclusion of these expenses by the Adjudicating Authority was done after due and proper application of mind which was only fair and reasonable. Further when CIRP withdrawal application had already been filed, the IRP had no exceptional responsibility or any exigency looming large before him. Nor was he faced with any complexity that required fast tracking of the CIRP process. We, therefore, do not find any convincing ground to disagree with the Adjudicating Authority to have categorized certain activities as non-essential and disallowing those expenses. 9. The second major finding returned by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 15 of the impugned order is that the Appellant was continuing with CIRP without actively pursuing the CIRP withdrawal application and that this was not in sync with the spirit of the IBC. We find that the Appellant has not denied the CIRP withdrawal application filed by himself vide IA No.510/2021 and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the Adjudicating Authority to the special circumstances warranting an expeditious decision on the withdrawal and stay applications. Hence we are inclined to hold that the Madhusudan decision cannot come to aid of the Appellant. Instead, we are of the considered view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly noted that the Appellant took advantage of the situation and mechanically pulled on with the CIRP process and kept on getting his expenses ratified from time to time by trumping up of the need to adhere to CIRP timelines. 12. This brings us to the last issue raised by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 15 where the conduct of the IRP has been strongly disapproved for not having actively pursued the matter before the Adjudicating Authority and for unnecessarily adding to the costs by carrying out non-essential activities. The Appellant has contended that there was no basis for the Adjudicating Authority to have passed deprecatory remarks on his conduct and prayed that the adverse remarks should be expunged. The Appellant has submitted that he is academically highly qualified and possesses rich experience having handled several CIRP/liquidation related assignment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
