TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (AT) Insolvency No 646 of 2020, Mr Devarajan Raman, Resolution Professional Poonam Drums & Containers Pvt Ltd v Bank of India Ltd. 2. The issue in dispute relates to the payments of costs and expenses incurred by the Resolution Professional ("RP"). Pursuant to an email dated 4 February 2019 of the respondent, who was a financial creditor of Poonam Drums and Containers Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor), the appellant submitted his technical and financial bid on 5 February 2019 for appointment as an Interim Resolution Professional. On 8 March 2019, the respondent filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ("IBC") against the Corporate Debtor. On 20 September 2019, the Corporate Debtor was admitted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 9,08,993. 5. The appellant moved the NCLT in an application on 17 January 2020 for obtaining the release of the remaining fee and costs. The principal relief which was claimed was in the following terms: "1. That the Respondent Bank of India, be directed to make payment of the CIRP cost including fees of the Applicant Resolution Professional as per the details furnished in the Annexure D." 6. On 24 January 2020, the respondent replied to the appellant's letter dated 30 December 2019 stating that it had verified the details of the fee and costs stated by the appellant and found them in conformity with the technical and financial bid based on which he had been awarded the assignment, together with the approval of the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to paying the said amount. However, the same was also disregarded, and in fact, was not even noticed in the order. Copies of the minutes of meeting between the appellant and respondent financial creditor, and of the other documents evidencing their agreement as to the fee to be paid to the appellant, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - C (Collectively). Annexed as Annexure D is a statement showing the amount paid by the respondent to the appellant after the passing of the impugned order, which is a sum of Rs. 7,09, 154/-. An amount of Rs. 1,99,839/- therefore yet remains to be paid, and this is reflected in the said statement as well." 8. The NCLAT, while dismissing the appeal, observed that: (i) The appellant had wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan (2021) 5 SCC 787, the adjudicating authority would have jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC. In the present case, the jurisdiction has (it is urged) been improperly exercised in the sense that there has been no application of mind to the basis of the claim and the figures which were accepted by the financial creditor. 11. On the other hand, Mr Vadlamani Seshagiri, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the appellant accepted the order of the NCLAT dated 19 December 2019 remitting the proceedings back to the NCLT for determining the costs and fee payable to the RP. Moreover, it was sought to be urged that the payment which has been made to the RP is commensurate with the work which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and direct that in a situation such as the present case, the adjudicating authority is sufficiently empowered under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to make a determination of the amount which is payable to an expert valuer as an intrinsic part of the CIRP costs. Regulation 34 of the IRP Regulations defines "insolvency resolution process cost" to include the fees of other professionals appointed by the RP. Whether any work has been done as claimed and if so, the nature of the work done by the valuer is something which need not detain this Court, since it is purely a factual matter to be assessed by the adjudicating authority. 14. Regulation 34 of the the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... annexed a statement of costs, the amount which was reimbursed with the balance dues at Annexure 'D'. The order of the NCLT, however, reveals that none of the submissions of the appellant have been considered. The adjudicating authority merely directed the respondent to pay the expenses incurred and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 plus GST towards the fee of the RP. Neither the basis of the claim nor its reasonableness has been considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority has merely proceeded in an ad hoc manner on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as fee, in addition to the expenses, appears to be reasonable. Both the orders suffer from an abdication in the exercise of jurisdiction. In the absence of any reasons eit....