TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, order to pay fee set aside, matter remanded for fresh decision. Order lacked reasons.</h1> <h3>Salem Stainless Stell Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajubhai Patel (RP of Cooltech Containers Pvt. Ltd.)</h3> Salem Stainless Stell Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajubhai Patel (RP of Cooltech Containers Pvt. Ltd.) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Liability of the Appellant to pay the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) despite the non-admission of the Appellant's claim by the IRP.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Liability to pay IRP fee despite non-admission of claimThe appeal was against an order directing the Appellant to pay the fee of the IRP within two weeks. The Appellant had filed a petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Corporate Debtor. Initially, an advance payment was made to the IRP for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Subsequently, due to talks of settlement, an application for withdrawal of CIRP was filed but later withdrawn as no settlement was reached. The Adjudicating Authority replaced the IRP due to non-proceedings in CIRP. A later application by the RP claimed a fee, which the Appellant failed to represent, resulting in an ex-parte order challenged in the appeal.The Appellant argued that as per Regulation 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, the Applicant should fix the IRP's expenses, which should be reimbursed by the committee upon ratification. The Appellant emphasized that expenses included the fee to be paid to the IRP. A CoC resolution approved a fee for the newly appointed IRP. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider that the IRP did not accept the Appellant's claim, questioning the basis for burdening the Appellant with the IRP's fee.The Tribunal found the impugned order non-speaking and lacking reasons, especially since the Appellant was proceeded against ex-parte. The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider crucial facts and circumstances. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the Appellant and considering all relevant aspects.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the application, providing an opportunity for a hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on a specified date for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
