Application seeking revival of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process dismissed for non-compliance with payment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to non-compliance with previous orders directing payment of costs and fees to the Interim Resolution Professional. The Tribunal found the application lacked merit and reasonableness, as the Corporate Debtor had already been directed to pay the costs. The dispute over payment and legal actions, including settlements with creditors, led to the dismissal of the application without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Non-compliance of impugned order dated 06.01.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in I.A. No. 1344 of 2020.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application for Revival of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
The Applicant filed an application against the non-compliance of the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal. The application sought to revive the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per the Order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority had directed the Corporate Debtor to pay the balance amount of fees and expenses to the Interim Resolution Professional.

Issue 2: Appointment and Activities of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
The Applicant was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor. The IRP conducted various activities, including constituting the Committee of Creditors and obtaining approval for remuneration and expenses. The IRP also filed an application for necessary directions to the suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 3: Dispute Over Payment and Legal Actions
A dispute arose regarding the payment of fees and expenses to the IRP post the settlement between the parties. The Respondent argued that the CIRP was set aside, and all actions of the IRP were nullified, questioning the entitlement of the IRP to claim fees and expenses. The Respondent contended that certain amounts had already been paid and disputed the additional claims made by the IRP.

Issue 4: Legal Notice and Application for Payment
The Applicant sent a Legal Notice demanding payment of the balance amount. The Respondent challenged the claim and highlighted settlements made with creditors and the lack of demand for the disputed amount. The Respondent argued against the necessity of the IRP filing an application before the Tribunal for non-compliance.

Issue 5: Tribunal's Decision and Dismissal of Application
After hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered the previous order granting liberty for the IRP to move the Tribunal in case of default. The Tribunal noted that the NCLT had already directed the Corporate Debtor to pay the CIRP costs. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the instant application, citing no need for further action. The application was deemed devoid of merit and unreasonable, leading to its dismissal without costs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the previous orders and settlements, leading to the dismissal of the application for revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to lack of compliance with the NCLT's directions regarding payment of costs and fees.

---