https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395193 The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's claim for excess salary payment prior to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation, stating it was paid in anticipation of approvals not granted. The Authority directed payment for services during CIRP but denied pre-CIRP excess payments. The rejection of salary claim during CIRP was upheld due to lack of approvals, as per the Companies Act, 2013. The Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors (COC) played crucial roles in evaluating and approving remuneration, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal requirements for managerial remuneration approval. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2020 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395193 The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's claim for excess salary payment prior to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation, stating it was paid in anticipation of approvals not granted. The Authority directed payment for services during CIRP but denied pre-CIRP excess payments. The rejection of salary claim during CIRP was upheld due to lack of approvals, as per the Companies Act, 2013. The Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors (COC) played crucial roles in evaluating and approving remuneration, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal requirements for managerial remuneration approval. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395193