2021 (2) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates for R1. ORDER 1. The brief facts of the case are that the Operational Creditor, Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, initiated insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Hospital Management Consultants Pvt Ltd. During the course of proceedings a settlement was arrived at between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and the Tribunal vide order dated 13.7.2020 approved the settlement and directed the Corporate Debtor to file bank guarantee of Rs. 17,75,638/- in favour of RP and the RP was directed to file withdrawal application. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.7.2020, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal challenging the orders of the National ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clear that the 1st respondent/Resolution Professional cannot lay a claim other than the amounts granted by this Appellate Tribunal as stated supra. With the aforesaid observations and direction(s), the Appeal Stands disposed of. IA No.1686/2020 (for stay) is closed." 4. Being aggrieved by this order dated 29.7.2020, the Resolution Professional approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.3288 of 2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing off the appeal directed the Resolution Professional to pursue his interim application before the NCLAT has granted liberty to the Resolution Professional to move afresh, if it is aggrieved by the order of the NCLAT. 5. The IA No.3049/2020 filed by the Resolution Prof....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ailing that consent as recorded in order dated 29.7.2020 was given by him without been authorised by the RP and further no document as to date of travel of the RP to Bihar(place unspecified) from Delhi, date of return from Bihar to Delhi. It is further stated that the RP actually performed the duties only for the period of 39 days i.e. from 27.1.2020 till 5.3.2020 and payment of fee and expenses of Rs. 17,75,638/- as claimed is highly unreasonable, excessive and arbitrary as the same is even more than the settled amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-. 7. We have heard the parties at length and perused. It is admitted fact that the RP worked for only 39 days and the settled amount is Rs. 1250000/- and the expenses for 39 days is Rs. 17,75,638/- which....