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>Appeal dismissed; ex-liquidator's Rs.188,02,261 fee claim denied under Reg.4(3), reg.2(1)(ea) and s.5(16) IBC confirming waterfall mechanism and fee entitlement rules</h1> <h3>BHUPESH GUPTA Versus RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL</h3> The SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the NCLAT and NCLT orders rejecting an ex-liquidator's claim for fees under Regulation 4(3) of the IBBI ... Legitimate fees of Liquidator - ex-Liquidator is entitled to fees under Regulation 4(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, based on the amount realized during the liquidation period, including sales revenue generated from running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern or not - Liquidator fee was not decided by COC - waterfall mechanism - it was held by NCLAT that 'we find that the Applicants’ claim for fees amounting to Rs,188,02,261/- is not tenable under Regulation 4 read with 2(1) (ea) of the Liquidation Regulations read with section 5(16) of the IBC and we don’t find any infirmity of order of the Adjudicating Authority.' HELD THAT:- No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, confirming the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Appeal dismissed. 'We find no grounds made out to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, confirming the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.' The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the NCLAT's confirmation of the NCLT order. The court ordered that 'The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.' All pending applications, if any, were also dismissed. The decision rests on the absence of substantive grounds to disturb the NCLAT/NCLT determinations, resulting in final affirmation of the lower tribunals' orders and termination of further proceedings in the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
