Liquidator remuneration under liquidation rules depends on realisation and distribution, not immediate separate payment.

Liquidator's remuneration was treated as part of liquidation cost, and where the committee of creditors had not fixed the fee before the liquidation order, it had to be determined under Regulation 4(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as it stood before the 25.07.2019 amendment. The approved compromise and arrangement scheme did not support separating the fee into an immediate standalone claim independent of actual realisation and distribution. The earlier order had already quantified the fee under the applicable liquidation framework, and the later order correctly clarified that payment would arise only on actual receipt and disbursal in the regulated manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the liquidator was entitled to immediate payment of fees and whether the order refusing such immediate payment required interference.

Analysis: The fee payable to the liquidator formed part of liquidation cost. Where the committee of creditors had not fixed the fee before the liquidation order, the fee had to be determined under Regulation 4(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as it stood prior to the amendment with effect from 25.07.2019. The approved scheme of compromise and arrangement did not justify splitting the liquidator's remuneration into separate immediate claims divorced from actual realization and distribution. The earlier order had already quantified the liquidator's fee on the basis adopted from the applicable liquidation regulations, and the impugned order only clarified that payment would arise upon actual receipt and disbursal in the manner contemplated by the regulations.

Conclusion: The liquidator had no enforceable right to demand immediate payment of fees contrary to the applicable liquidation regime, and the impugned order did not call for interference. The appeal failed.

---