https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272627 The Adjudicating Authority found the proposed professional fee by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to be exorbitant in a case filed under section 9 of the IBC. The fee quoted was significantly higher than the total outstanding debt amount, raising concerns about reasonableness. Comparisons with the remuneration of the Corporate Debtor's top executives highlighted the disproportionality of the proposed fee. Due to the lack of prescribed rules on fees for IRPs, the matter was referred to IBBI for appropriate action. A conflict of interest was noted as the proposed IRP had a relationship with the petitioner's counsel, prompting further review and compliance monitoring. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272627 The Adjudicating Authority found the proposed professional fee by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to be exorbitant in a case filed under section 9 of the IBC. The fee quoted was significantly higher than the total outstanding debt amount, raising concerns about reasonableness. Comparisons with the remuneration of the Corporate Debtor's top executives highlighted the disproportionality of the proposed fee. Due to the lack of prescribed rules on fees for IRPs, the matter was referred to IBBI for appropriate action. A conflict of interest was noted as the proposed IRP had a relationship with the petitioner's counsel, prompting further review and compliance monitoring. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272627