TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication is filed by the IRP of Digjam Ltd. under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Regulation 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 with the following prayers: i. to direct Respondents herein to pay the outstanding professional fees and expenses incurred and paid by erstwhile IRP i.e. Applicant herein for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process to the tune of Rs. 4,19, 719/-for being Insolvency Resolution Process Cost; ii. to direct Respondents herein to pay the outstanding professional fees of PCS, Mr. Jignesh Shah who was appointed by the applicant herein being the IRP of Corporate Debtor for the tune of Rs. 15, 000/-. iii. to di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the said meeting the professional fee and expenses of IRP were approved by the COC till the appointment of RP and the COC further resolved to appoint Respondent No. 1, Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal as RP of Corporate Debtor. The said Minutes of Meeting is annexed as Annexure-D at page no. 79 onwards. 5. It is further submitted by the Applicant that in discharge of his duties, the Applicant convened the second COC meeting on 09.07.2019 and third meeting on 06.09.2019, wherein it was decided and resolved to publish EOI. The Applicant in due discharge of his duties published the EOI. That apart, has also performed his duties as per direction of the COC or as per the need and requirement to complete the CIRP. Thereafter, Mr. Sunil Kumar Aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CIRP cost and is to be paid in priority. In support of the contention, the Applicant relied upon the judgment so passed by Hon'ble NCLAT in State Bank of India Vs. SKC Retails Ltd. and Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 08, 43 & 09 of 2018 and also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Dharmendra Dhaleriya RP of Raninga Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. COC of Raninga Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in IA 409/2018 in C.P. (1.B) No. 200/NCLT/AHM/2017. 8. On receipt of notice, the Respondent No. 2 filed his reply denying the allegations/statements made in the application and submitted that the application, so filed is nothing than to derail the final order reserved for approval of Resolution Plan. It is further submitted that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority while incurring the present expenses and the same was incurred without seeking approval of the COC, hence, on this ground also the Application is required to be rejected. 13. The Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the Applicant was appointed as IRP on 26.04.20 19 and it is expected that IRP is aware about the expiry date of Insurance Policy, which was actually expiring on December 10, 2019. Therefore, IRP was expected to present the Insurance Policy expenses in COC meeting and should have obtained approval prior to the making payment. However, he delayed it and requested for urgent approval of quotation submitted by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., the recommendation was accepted by COC members on priority and w....