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>Appeals dismissed, RP's fees reduced due to inactivity during Covid. Justified adverse remarks on conduct.</h1> <h3>India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. And Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. Versus Religare Finvest Ltd. (India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.), Dena Bank (Bank of Baroda), Star Orechem International Pvt. Ltd., Zumberlal Bharat & Sons HUF, Poddar Telecom Private Limited, Ujwala Bharut</h3> India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. And Rohit J. Vora, Erstwhile ... Issues Involved:1. Payment of fees and expenses to the Resolution Professional (RP) till 24.04.2022.2. Justification of reducing RP's fees to Rs. 1 lakh per month.3. Adverse remarks on the professional conduct of the RP.Summary:Issue 1: Payment of Fees and Expenses to RPThe appeals were filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the order directing the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to pay the RP's fees from 01.09.2019 to 24.04.2022. The CoC had ratified the RP's fees of Rs. 3.75 lakhs per month plus GST in the first meeting. Despite deciding to replace the RP in the third meeting, the CoC did not file an application for his replacement, thus the RP continued in his role. The Adjudicating Authority held that the RP was entitled to claim fees and expenses as the CoC had allowed him to continue. Religare Finvest's contention of having consented to fees only till 31.08.2019 was deemed redundant since the CoC had ratified the fees and allowed the RP to continue until a replacement was appointed.Issue 2: Justification of Reducing RP's FeesThe Adjudicating Authority reduced the RP's fees from Rs. 3.75 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh per month plus GST, considering the period of inactivity due to the Covid pandemic and the RP's failure to make substantial progress in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The RP's claim for full fees was not supported by precedents as the cited cases did not deal with fee reduction. The Authority found that the RP had failed to assist in the CIRP effectively, leading to a deadlock and eventual liquidation. The reduction in fees was considered reasonable and justified given the lack of substantial work and the Covid-19 disruptions.Issue 3: Adverse Remarks on RP's ConductThe RP's professional conduct was questioned due to several actions not in sync with the CoC's decisions, such as insisting on a forensic audit instead of a statutory audit and opposing liquidation despite filing for it. The RP's focus on claiming fees rather than completing the CIRP was noted. The Adjudicating Authority's remarks on the RP's conduct were deemed justified, as the RP's actions had impeded the CIRP process and caused harm to the Corporate Debtor.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, affirming the reduction of the RP's fees and the adverse remarks on his professional conduct.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
