AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ('Code') against the Impugned Order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV ('Adjudicating Authority') in I.A. No. 3098 of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 1632 (MB)/2019. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. is the Respondent No. 1 herein. 2. Gajendra Investments Ltd., Pratiti Trading Pvt. Ltd., and Vaishali Arun Patrikar are the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 respectively, herein. 3. The Appellant submitted that the present appeal challenges the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Cont. A. 18 of 2023, which failed to enforce the undertaking given by Respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay the Appellant's outstanding fees of Rs. 80,91,968.71. The impugned order, instead of directing immediate payment as per the undertaking recorded in the orders dated 16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022, instructed Respondent No. 4 to explore the possibility of raising interim finance, which is contrary to the explicit commitment made by the Respondents and violative of the principles of the Code, 2016. 4. The Appellant submitted that he was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the Adjudicating Authority, vide order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after repeated reminders via emails that went unanswered, constitutes wilful disobedience of the Adjudicating Authority's orders, attracting liability under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. The Appellant submitted that the new Resolution Professional (Respondent No. 4) filed frivolous applications, namely IA 3271 of 2022 and IA 1009 of 2023, falsely alleging that the Appellant had siphoned off funds from the Corporate Debtor's account. These allegations pertained to a cheque issued on 31.07.2020 (prior to CIRP commencement on 03.08.2020) and payments of Rs. 91,00,000/- post-CIRP, which were addressed in avoidance transaction applications. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority dismissed both applications on 10.01.2024 and 08.01.2024 respectively, finding no merit. The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 4's applications were filed without CoC approval and in disregard of the Respondents' undertaking, further evidencing a concerted effort to malign the Appellant and withhold his rightful fees. The filing of IA 1009 of 2023, seeking a refund of Rs. 91,00,000/-, duplicated relief sought in IA 3921 of 2022 against Darshan Developers Pvt. Ltd., highlightin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 80,91,968.71. The Respondents contended that the CoC, as the decision-making authority under the Code, was required to be arrayed as a party, as also directed in the order dated 10.01.2024 in IA 3098/2022. We take into consideration the relevant order of the Adjudicating Authority which is represented below:- 15. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant's prayer to set aside the impugned order and seek payment of Rs. 80,91,968.71 with 9% interest per annum from the date of handover is misconceived and contrary to the Code. The Respondents submitted that, under Section 5(13)(a) and (b) of the Code, the fees of a Resolution Professional constitute part of the CIRP costs. Regulation 34 and Regulation 34B of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), stipulate that such fees are to be determined by the CoC and paid from specific sources: funds available with the Corporate Debtor, contributions by the applicant or CoC members, or funds raised through interim finance. The Respondents contended that these provisions clearly vest the responsibility for payment of the Appellant's fees with the CoC, not individual membe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directed to deposit CIRP cost as FD with the Registrar, NCLAT. 21. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has not raised any grievance regarding the provision for his fees in the approved Resolution Plan, rendering his claim in the present appeal redundant. The Respondents contended that the appeal is an attempt to bypass the Code's framework by seeking relief against individual CoC members, which is not permissible under the law. 22. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant's allegations regarding his removal as Resolution Professional are baseless. The replacement of the Appellant was approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.09.2022 in IA 1162/2022, which was not challenged by the Appellant and has attained finality. The Respondents contended that the decision to replace the Appellant was taken by the CoC, and the Respondents, as members, acted within their rights under the Code. 23. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant's claim of financial hardship due to non-payment of GST is a matter of his own compliance and does not impose liability on the Respondents. The Respondents contended that the CIRP costs, including the Appellant's fees,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 and IA No. 1009/2023, were not frivolous but were moved in good faith to protect the interests of the Corporate Debtor. These applications addressed transactions, including a cheque issued on 31.07.2020 and payments of Rs. 91,00,000/- post-CIRP, which were under scrutiny in avoidance transaction applications. The Respondent No. 4 contended that the Adjudicating Authority's orders dated 10.01.2024 and 08.01.2024 disposing of these applications were based on the order dated 02.01.2024 in IA No. 3921/2022, which directed Darshan Developers to refund Rs. 91,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor, and not due to lack of merit. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that his actions as Resolution Professional were within the scope of his duties under the Code, particularly to safeguard the Corporate Debtor's assets. The filing of IA No. 3271/2022 and IA No. 1009/2023 was aimed at addressing potential wrongdoings, and Respondent No. 4 denied the Appellant's allegation that these applications contained false claims. The Respondent No. 4 contended that these applications were necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in the CIRP. 30. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the contempt appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot making payments to the Appellant. 36. We have gone through the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 3098 of 2022, which reads as under: - "IA.11o.30981,2022 & 175312023 - l. Mr. Akshay Petkar, Advocate appeared for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocate ilb Pragnya Legal appeared for the Respondent no. 2 &,3. 3. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate appeared for the ARCIL. 4. Mr. Ashish Jha, Applicant-in-person present in IA No. 175312023. 5. Mr. Amit Tungare, Advocate for Resolution Professional in both IAs. 6. Incoming RP is directed to explore the possibility of raising interim finance so as to make payment of outgoing RP and CoC must consider it positively. 7. In view of above, IA Nos. 309812022 & 175312023 are disposed of" (Emphasis Supplied) 37. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order to this appeal is "Incoming RP is directed to explore the possibility of raising interim finance so as to make payment of outgoing RP and CoC must consider it positively". Thus, the directions were given to the incoming Resolution Professional to explore the possibility of interim finance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rought to our notice that since then SRA has deposited Rs. 4,50,65,981/- in Form of FD in favour of Registrar NCLAT. All the Respondents submitted that in view of these developments and deposit of CIRP Cost by SRA, the present application of Appellant has become infructuous. 44. We further note that during pleading the Appellant conceded to these facts that SRA indeed has deposited the amount, however, the Appellant was apprehensive of the fact that the appeals filed by the Praful Satra the Ex- Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1628 of 2024 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1627 of 2024 are pending before this Appellate Tribunal and in case the Suspended Director succeeded, then the fund deposited by the SRA will revert to SRA and the Appellant will be paid nothing. The Appellant argued that in view of this, the undertaking of SRA which contained in this Appellate Tribunal's order dated 22.09.2022, shall be frustrated. 45. We appreciate the apprehensions of the Appellant. However, we have passed detailed orders in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1628 of 2024 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1627 of 2024, which are also being pronounced along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Akshay Petkar a/w Mr. Devarajan Raman, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Deep Dighe, Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present. 2) Stand over to 15.01.2024, for further consideration and hearing. 3) In the meantime, Applicant shall take steps to file and place on record Application so as to implead all the members of the Committee of Creditors as the Party Respondents to the present Interlocutory Application. Document 3 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1627 of 2024 In the matter of: Praful Satra .... Appellant Vs. Vaishali Patrikar & Ors. Respondents Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Shreyansh Chopra, Advocates. For Appellant For Respondents Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Mr. Ishaan Duggal, Ms. Ruchi Goyal, Advocates for ARCIL Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Agarwal, Advocate for RP Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Mr. Paras Mithal, Advocates for part of CoC Mr. Ayush Rajani, Ms. Manisha Ambrerani, Advocates for SRA Company App....