Insolvency misuse and resolution professional fees: refusal of full settlement and charges during stay were not justified.

Where sufficient funds existed to satisfy admitted creditor claims, the appellate authority treated refusal to accept a full settlement as an unjustified use of the insolvency framework and upheld termination of the corporate insolvency resolution process. It also held that fees could not be charged for the period when the process stood stayed, and accepted the reduction and refund of excess remuneration as corrective measures where continuing costs had become disproportionate to the claims. The appeals were dismissed and the order regulating the resolution professional's remuneration was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refusal of the Committee of Creditors to accept the settlement proposal and the consequent termination of the corporate insolvency resolution process were justified; (ii) whether the resolution professional's continuation of the process and the reduction/refund of remuneration were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the refusal of the Committee of Creditors to accept the settlement proposal and the consequent termination of the corporate insolvency resolution process were justified.

Analysis: The admitted operational dues were far below the funds available with the corporate debtor, and the creditors forming the Committee of Creditors had been offered full payment of their claims. The record showed repeated resistance to closure despite the availability of sufficient funds, while the proceedings had been prolonged for years. In these circumstances, the decision to continue the insolvency process was treated as a misuse of the insolvency framework, and the appellate authority held that interference was justified because the refusal to accept a just settlement was not a sound exercise of commercial judgment.

Conclusion: The refusal to close the insolvency process was not justified, and termination of the corporate insolvency resolution process was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the resolution professional's continuation of the process and the reduction/refund of remuneration were sustainable.

Analysis: The resolution professional had continued to charge fees during a period when the insolvency process stood stayed, and the overall costs had become disproportionate to the admitted claims. The appellate authority accepted that the fee charged during the stay period could not be justified and also noted that the corporate insolvency resolution process had been allowed to continue without necessity, causing avoidable depletion of the corporate debtor's funds. The directions reducing remuneration and ordering refund of excess payment were therefore treated as corrective measures.

Conclusion: The reduction of the resolution professional's remuneration and the direction for refund of excess fees were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the impugned order terminating the insolvency process and regulating the resolution professional's remuneration was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sufficient funds are available to satisfy the admitted claims of the creditors, an arbitrary refusal to accept a full settlement may amount to misuse of the insolvency process, and fees cannot be claimed for a period during which the insolvency process is stayed.

---