TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CoC. Hence, respondent no. 2 is directed to ratify the IRP fee claimed by the applicant/IRP to the tune of ₹ 2,10,000/- and reimburse the same - Application allowed. - I.A. No. 1099 of 2020 in C.P. No. 859/I&B/2019 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2021 - Hari Venkata Subba Rao, Member (J) and Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (T) For the Appellant: Amey Hadwale and Nikhil Rajanii i/b Deshpande Co. ORDER Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (T) 1. The present application is being filed by Mr. Mukul Khathuria, IRP under section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 31, 33 and 34 Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 seeking following reliefs in this application: a. Allow the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plus applicable taxes for rendering the professional services. However, the Axis Bank (Respondent No.2) did not agree for the said fees mentioning that the fees quoted by the outgoing IRP is too high. 5. It is pertinent to note that the members of the CoC confirmed the replacement of the applicant/IRP and the appointment of Resolution Professional. However, despite informing the CoC that the applicant will have to continue to carry out its duties until the appointment of said Resolution Professional is approved by this Tribunal. 6. The applicant submits that as set out of the total CIRP expenses of ₹ 3,24,089/-, the original petitioner in terms of Regulation 33 of CIRP Regulation has made payment ₹ 1,14,089/- till date. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP, therefore the Applicant further proposed the Respondent No.2 that the applicant shall charge the same fee as quoted hereinabove i.e. ₹ 1,75,000/- to act as RP till the appointment of the fresh RP after receiving confirmation of the same from the Adjudicating Authority. However, the CoC members had disagreed to the fee quoted by the applicant as the said fee was too exorbitant. Therefore, it was the discretion of the CoC members to decide the remuneration to be paid to the IRP or RP as the case may be. 9. The respondent further submits in his reply that in the minutes of First CoC, the Applicant had put forth a condition before the COC members that the applicant would charge fees of ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fees in his absence. 12. In order to ascertain the reasonableness of the fees charged by an Insolvency professional, the IBBI vide its circular dated 12th June 2018 bearing No. IBBI/IP/013/2018 has laid down certain parameters which are to be taken into consideration by the Insolvency Professional while charging its fees. 13. The applicant mentioned in his rejoinder that the Hon'ble NCLAT in Mr. Deverajan Raman, Resolution Professional Poo Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India Ltd. vide its order dated 30th July 2020 categorically held that as follows: Fixation of fee is not a business decision depending upon the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors Hence, going by the aforesaid rationale it is amply clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
