TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L. Ganesh , Advocate JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma , Member ( Judicial ) ] These are two Company Appeals which had been respectively preferred by the Appellant under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. The respective details of the appeals are given hereunder. 1) The Company Appeal being CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.222/2022, is challenging the Impugned Order dated 02.12.2020, as it has been rendered by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in IA No.447/2020 in C.P. (IB) No.137/BB/2019, wherein it had directed the Canara Bank / Respondent No.2, herein to pay its proportional share out of Rs.4,00,000/- for 30 days, i.e., the agreed fee payable to the Appellant till he is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntment as IRP, and the same shall continue to be paid at the said agreed rate till the Appellant herein continues as IRP. Thus, the Section 7 application which was being CP (IB) No.137/BB/2019, filed by Respondent No.3 stood allowed vide order dated 26.08.2019, of which the Appellant, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tak was appointed as IRP. The Appellant has pleaded that, he took up his role as an IRP on 05.09.2019. Upon his appointment, IRP has acted in compliance of the code and he had performed duties as such as, the publication of the public announcement of CIRP on 06.09.2019, collation and verification of claims from all the creditors, and a comprehensive and an analytical visit to the plan of Corporate Debtor, and meeting to the promoters of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case on 15.11.2019". On a simpliciter reading of the above extracted order, the IRP would be deemed to continue to discharge his duties until the new RP is appointed. As per the pleadings of the Appellant, it is noted that its only on 06.12.2019, that the present IRP has handed over all the records to the new RP, who was appointed vide order dated 27.11.2019. Subsequently, IA No.447/2020, on which the Impugned Order which is under challenge in the CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.222/2022, was filed by the Appellant herein, where he has sought a directions against the Respondent to pay him a legitimate dues of Rs.14,29,126/- for the duties which he had carried out as IRP. The said IA was decided vide order dated 02.12.2020, wherein the Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the claim of Applicant but did not agree for the same by approving some expenses as deemed fit. Principles of natural justice demands that IRPs chosen by Petitioners, who have filed Company Petitions, are entitled to receive agreed fee and expenses subject to approval COC for his/her continuation as RP, after COC constituted. Though the Applicant has not cited any rule or agreement in support of the instant claim, but it would not just and proper for Canara Bank to deny him bare minimum agreed fee of Rs. 4 lakhs till he was actually replaced by new RP. Therefore, it would be just and proper to direct the Respondent (Canara Bank) to pay the Applicant proportionate fee out of Rs. 4 lakhs till he was actually ceased to be IRP and rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed and consequentially the Appellant herein was discharged from his duties only on 27.11.2019. After hearing parties at length and after perusing the orders passed by NCLT, this Appellate Tribunal is of the view that, the amount of Rs.3,67,523/- (proportionate of shares) remitted by Respondent No.2 on 19.01.2021 will account to the payment for the first 30 days (i.e., from 05.09.2019 to 05.10.2019) of his appointment. By venturing into the observations which has been made by Learned NCLT in IA No.447/2020, wherein it had directed Respondent No.2 to pay a proportional share of Rs.4,00,000/-, the agreed fee which would be payable to the Appellant would be till the new RP has replaced him. Because from records till his date of replaceme....