TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Learned Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order directed the Appellant to pay to the Respondents a sum of Rs. 1,17,28,159/- within a period of 14 days from the date of order and the same shall be paid from the Insolvency Resolution Process cost. Further, the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to pay monthly rent to the Respondents during the CIRP Period till such time the Corporate Debtor is in occupation of the premises. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted the facts, stating that the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP vide an order dated 21.04.2017 in CA 1 (IB) of 2017. However, the CIRP Period extended from time to time. The Appellant was replaced/ appointed as RP for the Corporate Debtor and took necessary steps to take control of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the Appellant took necessary steps to ensure increase in the revenues generated by the Corporate Debtor so as to adequately meet out the payments towards all CIRP Costs. In view of lockdown, the generation of revenue has been impacted and only 50% of the payments to the Landlords towards rental dues could be paid for the month of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reasons as stated above the Learned Counsel prayed this Bench to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Respondents Submissions: 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority in an Application filed by them directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,17,28,159/- within a period of 14 days and directed to pay the monthly rent to the Respondents during the CIRP period. It is submitted that the Respondents are the absolute joint owners and Landlords of the Premises situated at No. 28-29, 7th Main Diaganal Road, 4th Block Jayanagar Bangalore. The said property has been leased out to the Corporate Debtor vide a lease deed dated 28.02.2011 entered to by and between M/s Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the Corporate Debtor and the Respondents herein. The premises has been utilised since then by the Corporate Debtor. The Learned Counsel submitted that in terms of the lease deed, the Corporate Debtor ought to have made payments of monthly rent as per the terms made in the deed. However, the Corporate Debtor has been inordinately been delayed paying the rents as a result of which the non-payments of rents is causi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority is sustainable in law or not. 15. It is an admitted fact that in pursuance of the lease agreement entered between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondents herein who are the owners of the premises, the Corporate Debtor carrying on its business from the leased premises as per the terms agreed in the agreement/lease deed dated 28.02.2011 and the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay the rents to the Respondents herein. While so the Corporate Debtor is into the CIRP and the Resolution Professional managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor as per the directions of the Adjudicating Authority in the matter. Therefore, the Resolution Professional who is in the helm of affairs of the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay the rents payable to the Respondents herein. In this context, the Respondents herein have filed an application being I.A. 671 of 2021 in CA 01 of 2017 praying the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order directing the Appellant herein to make payment of the lease rental dues of Rs. 1,36,66,667/- as on 01.06.2021 to the Respondents forthwith. The Respondents also sought various other reliefs in the application filed by them. After Adjudicating the Application on merits, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e premises leased to it. For the aforesaid reason the Learned Adjudicating Authority rejected the prayer of the Respondents seeking handing over of vacant possession of the premises. Hence, no interference is called for. 18. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that if the impugned order is implemented it would result in Corporate Debtor to pay huge sums of money towards payment of rental dues to all other Landlords. The said contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the Law provides for payment of Insolvency Resolution Process Costs as defined under Sub clause (c) of Sub Section 13 of Section 5 of IBC, 2016 which states as '(c) any cost incurred by the Resolution Professional in running the business of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern'. From a plain reading of the said definition it is crystal clear that during the period of moratorium the Resolution Professional who carries on the business of the Corporate Debtor and in carrying on the business and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, the costs so incurred by the Resolution Professional shall have to be paid. As stated supra the Landlord cann....