9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent 30 days till the new RP was appointed? - HELD THAT:- By venturing into the observations which has been made by Learned NCLT in IA No.447/2020, wherein it had directed Respondent No.2 to pay a proportional share of Rs.4,00,000/-, the agreed fee which would be payable to the Appellant would be till the new RP has replaced him. Because from records till his date of replacement had worked as IRP, which is fact apparent from records. The fact to be noted is that, the new RP was appointed on 27.11.2020 as per order passed in IA No.562/2019. From the date of expiry of the first slab of 30 days of his appointment as IRP (i.e., on 05.10.2019) till the date of appointment of new RP (i..e, 27.10.2020) wherein it happens to be 53 days, the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Impugned Order dated 25.02.2022, as it has been rendered by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in IA No.105/2021 in C.P. (IB) No.137/BB/2019, whereby a clarification has been sought to the order dated 02.12.2020 which was passed in IA No.447/2020, which was consequentially dismissed while observing that there was no clerical or typographical error in the order dated 02.12.2020. Brief facts which are involved in consideration in these two Company Appeals are identical. The Appellant in both these appeals is the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), appointed by NCLT in CP (IB) No.137/BB/2019, vide its order dated 26.08.2019. The Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) being Respondent No.3 in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first CoC meeting on 04.10.2019. It is pertinent to note at this juncture, that CoC comprised of members viz., Canara Bank, Respondent No.2, with a voting share of 83.15%, and the IREDA (Respondent No.3) with a voting share of 16.85%. Subsequently, the 2nd CoC meeting was also conducted on 18.10.2019 wherein many agendas were resolved, one among them was that the appointment of new RP was discussed. The Respondent No.2 decided to replace the Appellant with different RP and to file an application for the same before Learned Adjudicating Authority. The resolution for the same was passed by CoC by approval of 83.15% of voting share. For the appointment of a new RP, the Respondent No.2 is said to have filed an IA No.562/2019, under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order. It is to be noted that, consequent to the order the Respondent Bank had remitted a sum of Rs.3,67,523/- on 19.01.2021 as their proportional share to pay to the amount thus determined. Subsequently, the Appellant has filed a clarification application being IA No.105/2021, seeking the clarification of order dated 02.12.2020, i.e, with respect to para 4 of the said order which is extracted hereunder: - 4. As stated supra, the Applicant was admittedly chosen by the Petitioner, (IREDA who has filed the main Company petition, to appoint him as IRP, on agreeing the terms of payment, in terms of letter dated 15.11.2018 agree for payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) for 30 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmance of his duties is Rs.4,00,000/- as a whole or Rs.4,00,000/- thereafter too for each subsequent 30 days till the new RP was appointed. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that 30 days from the date of his appointment as IRP expires on 05.10.2019, and he argues that he is entitled to be paid for his fees from the date he took charge of IRP i.e., 05.09.2019 till the date of appointment of the new RP. Therefore, his professional fees, which ought to be paid would have been from 05.09.2019 to 27.11.2019 i.e., he actually worked as IRP, wherein it happens to be total 83 days, for which he was to be paid at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- for each 30 days, was to be paid to the IRP. But the said contention is being vehemently opposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of expiry of the first slab of 30 days of his appointment as IRP (i.e., on 05.10.2019) till the date of appointment of new RP (i..e, 27.10.2020) wherein it happens to be 53 days, the Appellant is shown to have worked as IRP and would entitled to receive the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- for each 30 days, and for the additional 53 days which amounts to Rs.6,49,290/-. IA No.105/2021, has been filed before the Learned NCLT for clarification of the IA No.447/2020. As observed above, the actual amount to be received by IRP is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- for each 30 days, which would be as determined above that is till 27.10.2020. The amount of Rs.6,49,290/- is directed to be paid to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of this Judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
