NCLAT Upholds IRP Fee Order, Emphasizes Compliance

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the fee determination for the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) as per the Adjudicating Authority's order, following the Appellate Tribunal's directives. The appeal against the fee fixation was dismissed, emphasizing compliance with fee determination processes. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected a review application for lack of apparent errors or new facts in the previous order, highlighting the stringent criteria for review consideration. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to fee determination guidelines for IRPs and the need for clear grounds to support review applications.

---

---

Issues: Fee determination for Interim Resolution Professional, Review application against previous order.

Fee determination for Interim Resolution Professional:
The judgment pertains to the fee determination of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 31st August, 2017, fixed the fee of the IRP in accordance with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 2nd August, 2017. The proceedings against the appellant, a Corporate Debtor, were set aside in the previous order, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to determine the fee payable to the IRP. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and the IRP, found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order fixing the fee of the IRP. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the fee determination process for the IRP as per the directives of the Appellate Tribunal.

Review application against previous order:
Regarding the review application against the order dated 2nd August, 2017, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 104 of 2017, the judgment clarifies that the said application is not maintainable in the current appeal. The Appellate Tribunal emphasizes that for a review to be considered, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record or new facts brought to their notice. In the absence of such circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal concludes that there is no basis for reviewing the previous order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the application for review is also dismissed. The judgment underscores the stringent criteria for allowing review applications and the need for clear grounds to justify a review of a previous order.

In conclusion, the judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addresses the fee determination for the Interim Resolution Professional and the review application against a previous order. It emphasizes the importance of following directives regarding fee fixation for the IRP and sets a high threshold for permitting review applications, requiring errors on record or new facts to be presented. The decision provides clarity on these legal aspects within the context of insolvency proceedings, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to established guidelines.

---