Adjudicating Authority modifies IRP expenses, criticizes conduct on CIRP withdrawal application

The Adjudicating Authority allowed the withdrawal application and discharged the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) but modified the reimbursement of expenses claimed by the IRP. The expenses were categorized into "essential" and "non-essential," with essential expenses approved and non-essential expenses disallowed due to lack of records. The IRP was criticized for not actively pursuing the CIRP withdrawal application, leading to unnecessary costs. The Tribunal upheld the adverse remarks on the IRP's conduct, emphasizing that academic qualifications do not excuse unprofessional behavior. The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
2. Classification of expenses as essential and non-essential by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Conduct of the IRP in pursuing the CIRP withdrawal application.
4. Deprecatory remarks on the conduct of the IRP and their impact on his professional career.

Summary:

1. Reimbursement of Expenses:
The IRP sought approval for reimbursement of expenses incurred during the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the withdrawal application and discharged the IRP but modified the reimbursement of expenses claimed by the IRP.

2. Classification of Expenses:
The Adjudicating Authority categorized the expenses into "essential" and "non-essential." It allowed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,48,237/- for essential activities and Rs. 2 lakhs as fees to the IRP. The non-essential expenses, including valuation exercises and payments to advocates for PUFE transactions, were disallowed due to the lack of records and incomplete tasks.

3. Conduct of the IRP:
The IRP was criticized for not actively pursuing the CIRP withdrawal application, which was not in sync with the spirit of the IBC. The IRP's contention that he pursued the applications diligently was not substantiated by records. The Tribunal found that the IRP mechanically continued the CIRP process, thereby unnecessarily adding to the costs.

4. Deprecatory Remarks on the IRP's Conduct:
The IRP sought to expunge adverse remarks on his conduct, arguing that they would jeopardize his professional career. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's remarks, stating that academic qualifications and past experience do not absolve the IRP of unprofessional conduct.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. No order as to costs was made.

---