Court Allows Late Appeal on IRP Fee Dispute; Remands Case for Fresh Hearing on Contempt Notice and Fee Entitlement.

The court condoned an 11-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided. The appeal challenged a contempt notice issued for non-compliance with a prior order, focusing on the Insolvency Resolution Professional's (IRP) entitlement to fees. The Appellant contested the fee entitlement until a specific order was passed, while the Respondent maintained the IRP's fee entitlement. The court set aside the previous order and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh hearing, instructing it to consider the Appellant's affidavit and make a final decision on the IRP's fee issue.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the entitlement of fees of the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

Condonation of Delay:
The application was filed for condonation of an 11-day delay in filing the appeal. The grounds for delay were that the order was passed on 29th November, 2023, uploaded on 13th December, 2023, and the certified copy was received on 29th December, 2023. The sufficient cause for delay was shown in the affidavit. The delay was condoned after considering the grounds presented.

Entitlement of Fees of the IRP:
The appeal was filed against an order where contempt notice was issued against the Appellant and other directors for non-compliance with a previous order. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced on 1st December, 2022, and various applications were filed during the process. The main contention was regarding the IRP's entitlement to fees. The Appellant argued that the IRP should not receive fees until a specific order is passed, although they were willing to pay reasonable fees. The Respondent argued that the IRP is entitled to fees until the order is passed, with a minimum fee requirement. The Adjudicating Authority had issued a contempt notice due to alleged wilful disobedience, but the Appellant claimed that the explanation in their affidavit was not considered. The judgment set aside the previous order and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh hearing, considering the affidavit filed by the Appellant.

Separate Judgment by the Judges:
The judgment was delivered by a panel including Justice Ashok Bhushan as the Chairperson, Barun Mitra as Member (Technical), and Arun Baroka as Member (Technical). The decision was made after hearing the arguments from both parties and examining the record. The final decision disposed of the appeal and directed the Adjudicating Authority to make a final decision on the pending fee issue of the IRP after hearing both parties.

---