Managing Director personally liable for compounding fees, not liquidator.

The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's decision directing the liquidator to reimburse compounding fees sought by the Managing Director of a Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that the Managing Director, as the individual responsible for the default, should bear personal liability for the offence, distinguishing it from the Corporate Debtor's obligations. Consequently, the liquidator was not obligated to reimburse the compounding fees, emphasizing the personal responsibility of the Managing Director and ruling in favor of the liquidator.

---

---

Issues:
- Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 seeking reimbursement of compounding fees.
- Maintainability of the Application under section 33, 35, and 60 of the I&B Code.
- Liability of the liquidator to reimburse compounding fees.
- Interpretation of Section 53 of the I&B Code.
- Applicability of the judgment in the case of ITO v. Joseph (1972) 83 ITR 362.
- Responsibility of the Respondent No. 1 as the Managing Director.
- Decision on the reimbursement of compounding fees.

The Appellant, the liquidator of a Corporate Debtor, filed an Appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in an Interlocutory Application. The Corporate Debtor faced financial difficulties and insolvency proceedings were initiated. The erstwhile Managing Director filed an Application seeking priority for compounding fees related to a criminal case. The Respondent No. 1 was accused of not depositing TDS to the Government account, leading to a criminal complaint. The Appellant opposed the Application, citing that it was not maintainable under the I&B Code and was in contravention of Section 53. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the Application, directing the liquidator to reimburse the compounding fees.

The key contention was whether the Respondent No. 1, as the Managing Director, should be liable for the offence or if the Corporate Debtor should bear the responsibility. The Appellant argued that the Respondent No. 1 should defend himself, while the Respondent's counsel claimed that the Corporate Debtor was at fault and the fees were part of liquidation costs. The Adjudicating Authority found the Application maintainable under the I&B Code, leading to the appeal.

The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and the nature of the alleged offence. It concluded that the Respondent No. 1, being responsible for the day-to-day affairs, was the one who committed the default. The liquidator's duty to defend the Corporate Debtor did not extend to admitting guilt for the offence. The Tribunal disagreed with the Adjudicating Authority's decision and set it aside, stating that the liquidator was not obligated to reimburse the compounding fees to the Respondent No. 1.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the liability for the offence, emphasizing the personal responsibility of the Managing Director. It highlighted the distinction between the Corporate Debtor and individual liability, ultimately ruling in favor of the liquidator and setting aside the order to reimburse the compounding fees.

---