Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the erstwhile resolution professional was entitled to calculate liquidator fee in the first or second bucket, and whether the amount already withdrawn in excess of the fee admissible under the liquidation regulations had to be refunded.
Analysis: The relevant fee under Regulation 4(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 depends on the period within which realisation of assets takes place. The exclusion claimed for the additional period relating to the resumption of auctions on medical grounds was not accepted, as the record showed that the effective realisation occurred after more than one year. The fee computation made on the third-bucket basis was therefore upheld, and the earlier withdrawal by the appellant was found to exceed the amount legally payable, with liability to refund the excess along with GST.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to higher fee computation on the basis claimed, and the direction to refund the excess amount was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the determination of liquidator fee on the third-bucket basis was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the liquidation fee framework, the applicable fee bucket is determined by the actual period of realisation, and a claimed exclusion of time will not be accepted unless it is properly established and justified on record.