TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands Sans merits. It is of the earnest opinion that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-1, Chennai) had rightly opined by the COC had not approved the legal expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Professional and the legal cost incurred by him as required, in terms of the ingredients of the Regulation 33 that the Resolution Professional Regulations and further that the claim of the IRP could not be considered at this stage. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 64 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2022 - [Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial) And [Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) For Appellant : Mr. CA. V. Venkata Sivakumar (party in person) ORDER (VIRTUAL MO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant being an officer of the Court and the fact of the matter is remuneration agreed was not paid, by this material aspect was not properly appreciated by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-1, Chennai) at the time of passing the Impugned Order, which had resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. At this juncture, this Tribunal relevantly points out that in MA/98/202 in C /IB/ 2018 the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-1, Chennai) at paragraph 4 to 7 had observed the following: 4. The applicant further claims to have incurred certain legal expenses in defending various matters and for defending continuous litigation with IBBI and ICAI for which he has rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2018 dated 06.03.2018 whereby and whereunder at paragraph No.5 to 8 has been observed as follows: 5. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the Committee of Creditors are not liable to bear any fees of the Insolvency Resolution Professional. 6. The question arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Committee of Creditors are liable to bear the expenses incurred by the Insolvency Resolution Professional or not. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant reiterated the argument that the Committee of Creditors are not liable to pay the expenses of the Insolvency Resolution Professional. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
