Tribunal dismisses RP's repayment claim post-approval, citing lack of independence and untimely filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Resolution Professional's application seeking repayment from the Respondents, based on a forensic audit report indicating preferential transactions. The application was challenged for lack of independent opinion and being filed post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal held that pursuing such claims post-approval is not permissible, as the RP's role ends with the plan's approval. The decision was based on the RP's failure to adhere to timelines and the perceived attempt to avoid scrutiny. Further proceedings were directed as necessary.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the Resolution Professional filed the application in compliance with the Code and Regulations governing Corporate Insolvency ProcessRs.
- Whether the application can survive after the Resolution Plan is approvedRs.

Analysis:
Issue a: Compliance with Code and Regulations:
The Resolution Professional (RP) sought directions for the repayment of a sum by the Respondents to the Corporate Debtor under Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The RP based the application on a forensic audit report indicating preferential transactions. The RP's application was challenged by Respondents 1 to 3, arguing that the RP did not form an independent opinion and relied solely on the auditor's observations. The Respondents also highlighted that the RP's application was filed after the Resolution Plan was approved, raising concerns about its validity.

Issue b: Survival of Application Post-Approval of Resolution Plan:
The timeline of events revealed that the RP filed the application for preferential transactions after the approval of the Resolution Plan. This raised doubts about the RP's intentions, as the application should have been filed before the plan's approval. The Tribunal noted that once the Resolution Plan is approved, the RP's role ends, and pursuing preferential transactions becomes challenging. Citing a High Court judgment, it was emphasized that such applications cannot be pursued post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal concluded that the RP's application seemed to be a tactic to avoid scrutiny rather than a genuine pursuit of preferential transactions.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the RP's application, stating that it should not be allowed. The decision was based on the RP's failure to adhere to the timeline, lack of independent determination of preferential transactions, and the filing of the application post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal directed the Registry to inform all parties of the decision and issued instructions for further proceedings, if required.

---