2023 (2) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad, Division Bench, Court-I) by which an application bearing I.A. No. 851(AHM)2021 filed by the RP claiming his fee of Rs. 2,95,026/- has been decided and the present Appellant has been directed to pay the said amount within a period of two weeks. 2. At the time of issuance of notice dated 11.04.2022, interim order was passed to the effect that "In the meantime, the direction in order dated 23.02.2022 shall remain stayed." 3. The brief facts of this case are that the present Appellant filed a petition bearing CP (IB) No. 599/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') against the Corporate Debtor 'M/s Cooltech Containers Pvt. Ltd.' for the resolution....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... periodically." 5. It appears that thereafter an application bearing I.A. No. 851 of 2021 was filed at the instance of the RP through which he claimed fee of Rs. 2,95,026/-. Though notice was issued in the said application but it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that due to some bonafide mistake the Appellant could not represent and an ex-parte order was passed which is challenged herein through this appeal. 6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as per Regulation 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (in short 'Regulations') the cost of Interim Resolution Professional is to be fixed by the Applicant (either the Financial Creditor or Operat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and baseless. That the IRP has not received any claim from the Appellant and that undersigned has sent various reminders to file claim as operational creditor and also asked for details w.r.t. to corporate debtor." 8. It is thus submitted that if the claim of the Appellant (Operational Creditor) is not even taken into consideration by the IRP then on what ground the CoC is burdening the present Appellant with the Cost/Fee to be paid to the IRP? 9. It is submitted that the impugned order is totally non-speaking, giving no reason at all, even if, the Appellant was proceeded against ex-parte. It is however submitted that had the Adjudicating Authority looked into all these facts, the impugned order could not have been passed and the Appella....