https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781056 NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's refusal to fix or award professional fees for the interim stay period (14.08.2023-18.03.2025). The court held that the HC stay rendered CIRP activities impermissible, so actions taken by the IRP during that 19-month exclusion were irrelevant to entitlement and did not amount to services justifying payment. Fee entitlement requires quid pro quo for functions performed in the official capacity of the IRP, which was not demonstrated for the stay period; the denial of fees was therefore justified. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781056 NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's refusal to fix or award professional fees for the interim stay period (14.08.2023-18.03.2025). The court held that the HC stay rendered CIRP activities impermissible, so actions taken by the IRP during that 19-month exclusion were irrelevant to entitlement and did not amount to services justifying payment. Fee entitlement requires quid pro quo for functions performed in the official capacity of the IRP, which was not demonstrated for the stay period; the denial of fees was therefore justified. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781056