https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415172 The Tribunal held that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was not entitled to fees beyond the statutory period as per Section 22(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The decision to replace the IRP by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was deemed valid, and the IRP's claim for fees until his replacement was limited to the actual work performed. The Tribunal clarified that regulatory provisions cannot override statutory requirements, and the IRP's entitlement should align with the work executed. An interim payment of Rs. 10 lakhs was considered adequate, and the IRP's claim for fees beyond the statutory period was rejected. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:58:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415172 The Tribunal held that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was not entitled to fees beyond the statutory period as per Section 22(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The decision to replace the IRP by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was deemed valid, and the IRP's claim for fees until his replacement was limited to the actual work performed. The Tribunal clarified that regulatory provisions cannot override statutory requirements, and the IRP's entitlement should align with the work executed. An interim payment of Rs. 10 lakhs was considered adequate, and the IRP's claim for fees beyond the statutory period was rejected. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415172