Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
IBC - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights July 2024 Year 2024 This

The NCLAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed a contempt petition ...


NCLAT addressed contempt petition on RP fees. Adjudicating Authority can set fees under CIRP Regulations. Financial Creditor to pay fees and expenses.

July 4, 2024

Case Laws     Insolvency and Bankruptcy     AT

The NCLAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed a contempt petition regarding the determination of the Resolution Professional's (RP's) fees and expenses. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to determine the fees and expenses under Regulation 33(2) of CIRP Regulations 2016. The Adjudicating Authority complied with the Tribunal's direction to determine the fees. The Financial Creditor was directed to pay Rs. 7,30,000/- as RP's fee and Rs. 2,41,512/- as CIRP expenses, with a specific payment timeline. An uncalled-for direction was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the Financial Creditor's liability to pay the determined amounts.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process...

  2. The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayer to recall the admission order. Regarding withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC, the...

  3. Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor was erroneously rejected by the Adjudicating Authority despite debt and default by the Corporate Debtor. The...

  4. This summary concerns the maintainability of a fresh application u/s 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellant had filed an application u/s 94 in 2020,...

  5. The NCLAT set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the liquidation application filed by the Resolution Professional as recommended by the Committee of...

  6. The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging procedural aspects of liquidator fee determination without contesting the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee's (SCC) actual...

  7. The NCLT had directed the release of an industrial promotion subsidy claim amount to the Corporate Debtor, which was sanctioned prior to the commencement of CIRP. The...

  8. While permitting withdrawal of Section 9 Application, Adjudicating Authority did not grant liberty to the Appellant to reapproach the Adjudicating Authority in the event...

  9. The NCLAT dismissed appellants' attempt to submit belated claims after a resolution plan had already been approved by both the CoC and Adjudicating Authority. The...

  10. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional had jurisdiction to file an application for withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC. The NCLAT...

  11. The NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent powers u/r 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 to approve a settlement between the second respondent and the Corporate Debtor,...

  12. The NCLAT addressed issues regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan by Suraksha Realty Limited, focusing on the treatment of claims filed in the CIRP of the Corporate...

  13. The appellant challenged the dismissal of its application filed u/s 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues were: existence of debt and default,...

  14. Eligibility of ex-promoter/Corporate Debtor u/s 29A read with Section 240A of the IBC to submit a resolution plan claiming the benefits of MSME - rejection of Resolution...

  15. NCLAT dismissed the contempt application against adjudicating authority. It held no contempt was committed in admitting section 7 application against corporate debtor's...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates