Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Liquidator not entitled to fees under Regulation 4(2)(b) when banks handle sale and distribution independently</h1> <h3>Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Versus Maheswary Ispat Ltd., CA Santanu Brahma, Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Maheswary Ispat Limited Versus Indian Bank and State Bank of India</h3> The NCLT Kolkata held that a liquidator is not entitled to fees under Regulation 4(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 when the ... Entitlement to Liquidator, of additional Liquidation Cost including the Liquidator's Fees - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, envisages that a liquidator is entitled to fees towards realisation and distribution only when he has 'realised' or 'distributed' any amount and not otherwise. It appears that the entire action to sell the Panagarh Unit was conducted solely by the Respondent Banks sans any involvement of the liquidator and the realisation and distribution of the sale has also been done by the Respondent Banks only. Hence, the amount apportioned by the Liquidator as his fees towards the sale of Panagarh Unit may not be payable. In the present case it is submitted that the entire action to sell the Panagarh Unit was conducted solely by the Respondent Banks sans any involvement of the liquidator. Further, that the realisation and distribution of the sale Panagarh Unit has also been done by the Respondent Banks only, hence, the Liquidator had no role to play in this sale process. Hence, in terms of Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the amount apportioned by the Liquidator as his fees towards sale of Panagarh Unit will not be payable. As such, the ratio held in Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2025 (2) TMI 270 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI] may not apply to the present facts, where it was held that 'In brief, with respect to the Secured Financial Creditor, the situation is clearly enumerated in Regulation 21-A(2)(a), which is applicable in this case. The Liquidator's fee is also prescribed under Regulation 4. Regulations 4(1) and 4(1A) provides primacy to CoC and consultation Committee. The Respondent's claim that the Liquidator is entitled for a fee under Regulation 4(2)(b) only when he has actually realised or distributed any amount is not tenable in the light of Regulation 21A.' In terms of Regulation 21A(2)(a) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, where a secured creditor proceeds to realise its security interest, it shall pay as much towards the amount payable under Section 53(1)(a) -for CIRP and Liquidation Costs and under Section 53(1)(b)(i) - for workmen's dues, as it would have shared in case it had relinquished the security interest, to the liquidator within ninety days from the liquidation commencement date. The provision of fees as Regulation 21A(2)(a) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 envisages, is a mandatory provision which makes it imperative for the secured creditor to pay towards the CIRP Costs, even if the secured creditor has proceeded to realise its security interest in accordance with law. Conclusion - i) The liquidator was not entitled to fees for the sale of the Panagarh Unit. ii) The Respondent Banks had complied with their obligations under Regulation 21A, except for the liquidator's fees related to the Panagarh Unit sale. Application disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:1. Whether the Liquidator is entitled to fees for the sale of the Panagarh Unit, which was conducted solely by the Respondent Banks, under Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.2. Whether the Respondent Banks have complied with Regulation 21A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, concerning the payment of liquidation costs.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Entitlement of Liquidator's FeesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal considered Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which outlines the entitlement of a liquidator to fees as a percentage of the amount realized and distributed. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Parulkar, where the NCLAT held that the liquidator is entitled to fees even if they did not directly realize or distribute the secured asset.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Regulation 4(2)(b) to mean that a liquidator is entitled to fees only when they have realized or distributed any amount. Since the sale of the Panagarh Unit was conducted by the Respondent Banks without the liquidator's involvement, the Tribunal found that the liquidator was not entitled to fees for this sale.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the Respondent Banks conducted the entire sale process of the Panagarh Unit and realized the proceeds without the liquidator's involvement.Application of law to facts: Applying Regulation 4(2)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the liquidator was not entitled to fees for the sale of the Panagarh Unit as they did not participate in the realization or distribution of the sale proceeds.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the liquidator's argument, referencing the NCLAT's decision in Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., but distinguished it on the facts, noting that in the present case, the liquidator had no role in the sale process.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the liquidator was not entitled to fees for the sale of the Panagarh Unit under Regulation 4(2)(b).2. Compliance with Regulation 21ARelevant legal framework and precedents: Regulation 21A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, requires secured creditors to pay their share of liquidation costs if they choose to realize their security interest.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Regulation 21A as mandating secured creditors to contribute towards liquidation costs, even if they proceed to realize their security interest.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the Respondent Banks had contributed towards liquidation costs, excluding the liquidator's fees for the Panagarh Unit sale.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Regulation 21A to determine that the Respondent Banks had complied with their obligations to contribute towards liquidation costs, except for the contested liquidator's fees.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the Respondent Banks' argument that they had fulfilled their obligation under Regulation 21A by contributing to the liquidation costs and that the liquidator's fees for the Panagarh Unit sale were not applicable.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent Banks had complied with Regulation 21A, except for the liquidator's fees related to the Panagarh Unit sale.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'A bare perusal thereof explicates that a liquidator is entitled to fees towards realisation and distribution only when he has 'realised' or 'distributed' any amount and not otherwise.'Core principles established: The Tribunal established that a liquidator is not entitled to fees for the sale of assets conducted solely by secured creditors without the liquidator's involvement in realization or distribution.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the liquidator was not entitled to fees for the sale of the Panagarh Unit and that the Respondent Banks had complied with their obligations under Regulation 21A, except for the liquidator's fees related to the Panagarh Unit sale.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found