TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in CA No. 37/CB/20221 in CP No. 109/CTB/2020 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Respondent/Liquidator being CA No. 37/CB/2021 and directed that fees should be paid to the Liquidator/Respondent herein as specified under Regulation 4(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as amended on July 25, 2019. The order passed by the Tribunal is as follows: "6. In view of the same the fee as specified under Regulation 4(2) of the aforesaid Regulations is fixed in the instant matter, which is as under:- Amount of realisation /Distribution (in rupees) percentage of fee on the amount realised/distributed I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the insolvency professional was appointed as the provisional liquidator under the provisions of Section 273 of the Act. And the provisional liquidator was directed to be paid lump sum fees of Rs. 1 lakh as his remuneration for his services. Further, order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Tribunal, the appointment of the Respondent was confirmed as the Liquidator. iii) Further case of the Appellant is that the company in liquidation was formed as a SPV of the Government of Odisha under the notification dated 22.07.2013 issued by Housing & Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha. The SPV was promoted as joint venture of Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC), Cuttack Development Authority (CDA), Odisha State Transport Corporation (OS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any petition was admitted and the Respondent was finally appointed as Liquidator. In terms of the order dated 07.08.2020, the Liquidator/Respondent has been paid entire remuneration which was directed. Thus, Rs. 75,000/- was aid to the Respondent on 09.07.2021 and the balance Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the Respondent on 31.07.2021 as his lump sum remuneration. However, on 16.08.2021, the Respondent filed an application being CA No. 37/CB/2021 seeking the following reliefs: a) An order be passed regarding fixing the remuneration of the Applicant for his role as the Liquidator of the Petitioner. b) Such further orders in term of prayers above. c) Such further orders and/or directions be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire lump sum remuneration was already paid to the Respondent pursuant to the order dated 07.08.2020. The impugned order is contrary to public interest because the Respondent is trying to make unjust enrichment by charging remuneration on percentage basis at the rate of 3.75% which would put financial burden upon the public exchequer. Further, no fees can be paid to the liquidator who was appointed under the provisions of Chapter XX, Sections 271 to 275 of the Companies Act, 2013 by wrongfully and erroneously applying the provisions of the Regulation 39D of the IBBI (Regulation Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The impugned order is also erroneous and perverse because once ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fee fixed by the Tribunal, is also in two parts, first part is in relation to realization and second part is in relation to distribution. Therefore, the argument raised by the Appellant that some of the assets do not require any effort for realization, would automatically not fetch any remuneration for Liquidator as there will not be any realization and no corresponding fee and as such the argument of the Appellant is that of creating a prejudice against the Respondent and not on correct facts or law. 8. It is further submitted that the procedure of liquidation, priority of payments/distribution, method of realization and distribution are all the way same under Companies Act as well as IBC, therefore, except for nomenclature, the simila....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e duties and functions of Liquidator under the Companies Act, and IBC and thus borrowing of schedule of remuneration from IBC is absolutely reasonable, fair and lawful. vi) The Judicial Pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaledonia Jute Vs. Axis Nirman, Forech India Judgment and also in Navin Chandra Steel Case, points towards this position. In view of the above, the Tribunal has taken right step to decide the remuneration of the Liquidator by borrowing the same from IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations and hence for the aforesaid reason the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. After hearing the parties, we observe that the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant filed Notification issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affair....