Devarajan Raman vs Vistra Itcl India Limited

(Arising out of the Order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Mumbai, Court 1 in IA 3098 of 2022, in CP (IB) 1632 (MB)/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF:

Devarajan Raman Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Satra Properties (India) Ltd. Having his office at 9, 22 Rajbahadur Mansion Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Email:- devarajanraman@gmail.com ...Appellant Versus 1. Vistra ITCL ( India ) Ltd. IL & FS Financial Centre Plot No. C 22, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Email : - prashant.padaye@vistra.com ...Respondent No. 1

2. Gajendra Investments Ltd. Aidun Building near Metro Cinema, lst Dhobi Talao Lane,Murnbai - 400 002. Email : - balu@mjshahgroup.co.in ...Respondent No. 2 3. Pratiti Trading Pvt. Ltd. Aidun Building near Metro Cinema, lst Dhobi Talao Lane, Mumbai - 400 002. Email :- heena@mjshahgroup.co.in ...Respondent No. 3

4. Vaishali Arun Patrikar Resolution professional Satra Properties India Ltd. A-2, Shantidoot Society, Parvati Darshan, Pune-411 009. Email:- ip.satraproperties@gm ...Respondent No. 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Present For Appellant: Ms. Anjali Sharma, Devarajan Raman, Adv.

For Respondents: Mr. Palash S Singhai, Harshal Sareen, Adv. for SRA Ms. Madhura MN, Jasleen Singh Sandha, Adv. for R1, 2 and 3

Vaishali Patrikar, RP

Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Subh Gautam, Taruna, Vishal Sharma, Adv. for R4.

JUDGEMENT

( 04.09.2025)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e. Devarajan Raman,

who is the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Satra Properties (India) Ltd.,

under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('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

Page 2 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

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 dated 03.08.2020.

Subsequently, at the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) held on

03.10.2020, the Appellant was confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP)

under Section 22 of the Code. The CoC resolved to pay the Appellant a monthly

fee of Rs. 5,00,000/- plus applicable taxes and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses,

payable by the 10th of the following month by CoC members in proportion to their

voting share, until the approval of the Resolution Plan or issuance of a liquidation

order. The Appellant further submitted that he voluntarily reduced his monthly

fee to Rs. 2,25,000/- plus applicable taxes to ensure compliance with professional

ethics and to facilitate the smooth conduct of the CIRP.

5. The Appellant contended that, despite the unprecedented challenges posed

by the COVID-19 pandemic, he diligently completed the CIRP within 13 months,

submitting the Resolution Plan to the Adjudicating Authority, on 01.10.2021 (IA

Page 3 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

2273 of 2021) demonstrated his entitlement to the agreed fees, which form part

of the CIRP costs duly approved by the CoC.

6. It is the claim of the Appellant that the Respondents requested the

Appellant to file a complaint with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO),

but the Appellant advised that such matters required CoC approval and adequate

documentation, and the appropriate course was to seek an investigation order

from the Adjudicating Authority under the code. The Appellant submitted that,

dissatisfied with his prudent advice, Respondents No. 1 to 3 sought his

replacement vide IA 1162 of 2022 filed with malafide intentions. The Appellant

submitted that he was replaced as Resolution Professional by the Adjudicating

Authority vide order dated 22.09.2022 in IA 1162 of 2022, premised on an

undertaking by Respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay his outstanding fees of Rs.

80,91,968.71 upon handover of charge to the new Resolution Professional. The

undertaking, recorded in the orders dated 16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022, was given

by the Respondents' counsel further highlighting the procedural irregularity in

their actions.

7. The Appellant submitted that, despite the non-payment of his fees, he

handed over charge to the new Resolution Professional on 28 th and 29th

September 2022 to ensure the smooth functioning of the Corporate Debtor. The

Appellant contended that the Respondents' failure to honour their undertaking,

even after repeated reminders via emails that went unanswered, constitutes wilful

Page 4 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

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.,

highlighting Respondent No. 4's reckless conduct.

9. The Appellant submitted that the non-payment of Rs. 80,91,968.71 has

caused severe financial hardship, including default on GST payments, which

attracts interest and penalties. The Appellant contended that this default is a direct

consequence of the Respondents' failure to honour their undertaking and the

CoC-approved CIRP costs, exacerbating the Appellant's financial distress.

Page 5 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

10. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in the

impugned order dated 02.02.2024 by failing to direct Respondents No. 1 to 3 to

immediately pay the outstanding fees, despite their explicit undertaking, instead,

the Impugned Order directed Respondent No. 4 to explore interim finance, which

is contrary to the orders dated 16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022. The Appellant

contended that this direction undermines the sanctity of judicial undertakings and

the framework of the Code.

11. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority also failed to

consider that the fees were approved by the CoC on 03.10.2020 as part of the

CIRP costs and non-payment of these fees not only violates the CoC's resolution

but also jeopardizes the CIRP process.

12. The Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal to direct Respondents No.

1 to 3 to pay the outstanding fees and expenses of Rs. 80,91,968.71 to the

Appellant forthwith, along with applicable interest for the delay and hold

Respondents No. 1 to 3 liable for contempt of court for wilful disobedience of

their undertaking recorded in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority dated

16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022. The Appellant further requested this Appellate

Tribunal to direct Respondent No. 4 to comply with Regulation 34B (5) of the

IBBI Regulations by placing the undertaking before the CoC for immediate

action.

Page 6 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

13. Concluding his arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal

to set aside the Impugned Order and to allow the appeal.

14. Per contra, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 (herein referred to as

'Respondents') denied all averments made by the Appellants as misleading and

baseless. The Respondents submitted that the appeal is not maintainable due to

the Appellant's failure to implead the CoC as a necessary party. The impugned

order dated 02.02.2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority directed the CoC

to explore raising interim finance to pay the Appellant's fees 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:-

Page 7 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Page 8 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

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

Page 9 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

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 members like the Respondents.

16. The Respondents submitted that they collectively hold only 30.89% of the

voting share in the CoC, as per the composition established by this Appellate

Tribunal's order dated 15.04.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

1590/2023. The Respondents contended that they do not constitute the majority

of the CoC, nor do they represent the CoC as a whole. therefore, they cannot be

held individually liable for the Appellant's fees, as the liability lies with the CoC

in proportion to the voting shares of its members.

17. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant's reliance on the alleged

undertaking recorded in the orders dated 16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 is misplaced.

The order dated 16.09.2022 does not record any undertaking by the Respondents.

The order dated 22.09.2022 explicitly states that the undertaking was given by

the Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the CoC, stating that "the Fee of the

erstwhile Resolution Professional shall be paid as decided by the CoC." The

Respondents contended that no personal undertaking was given by them, and the

obligation to pay the Appellant's fees rests solely with the CoC.

18. The Respondents further submitted that the Appellant himself

acknowledged the CoC's role in an email dated 30.09.2022, wherein he informed

Page 10 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

all CoC members, including the Respondents, that the handover was complete

and payment was outstanding. The lack of response from CoC members, as noted

by the Appellant, underscores that the matter pertains to the CoC collectively, not

the Respondents individually.

19. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant's claim for fees has been

adequately addressed under the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating

Authority vide order dated 26.07.2024 in IA No. 2273/2021 in CP(IB) No.

1632/MB/2019. The Resolution Plan provides for CIRP costs (which also

includes the fees of the Resolution Professional), estimated at Rs. 1,50,00,000/-,

to be paid in full within 30 days from the approval date. The Respondents

contended that the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has deposited Rs.

4,50,65,981/- with the Registrar, NCLAT, as directed by this Appellate Tribunal

on 22.08.2024 in CA(AT)(I) No. 1627/2024 & 1628/2024, ensuring the

availability of funds for CIRP costs.

20. At this stage, we reproduce our earlier order dated 22.08.2024 as under:-

Page 11 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Page 12 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Page 13 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Thus, indeed the SRA was 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, are adequately provided for in the

Resolution Plan, and the Appellant's recourse lies within the framework of the

approved plan, not through selective targeting of the Respondents.

24. The Respondents requested this Appellate Tribunal to reject the

Appellant's appeal.

Page 14 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

25. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the grievance regarding the non-

payment of Rs. 80,91,968.71 has been addressed through the approval of the

Resolution Plan vide order dated 26.07.2024 in IA No. 2273/2021. The SRA has

deposited Rs. 4,50,65,981/- in a fixed deposit in favour of the Registrar, NCLAT,

New Delhi, on 06.09.2024, as per the order dated 22.08.2024 in CA(AT)(I) No.

1627/24 & 1628/24, which includes the Appellant's claimed amount.

26. The Respondent No. 4 contended that the approval of the Resolution Plan

and the deposit of CIRP costs render the appeal infructuous, as the Appellant's

fees, forming part of the CIRP costs payable under the approved Resolution Plan.

The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the Appellant has not raised any grievance

regarding the provision for his fees in the Resolution Plan, and seeking relief

against Respondent No. 4 is misplaced and contrary to the Code.

27. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that he diligently complied with the

Adjudicating Authority's directions in the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 by

taking steps to explore interim finance. The Respondent No. 4 sent emails to CoC

members and third parties inviting proposals, and on 16.06.2024, Resolve-IPE

Pvt. Ltd. shared a term sheet. A CoC meeting was proposed to discuss this, but

before it could be held, the Adjudicating Authority reserved orders on the

Resolution Plan vide order dated 01.07.2024. Respondent No. 4 contended that

his actions demonstrate full compliance with the impugned order.

28. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the undertaking referenced by the

Appellant, recorded in the orders dated 16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022, was given on

Page 15 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

behalf of the CoC, not by Respondent No. 4. The order dated 22.09.2022

explicitly states that the fees of the erstwhile Resolution Professional shall be paid

as decided by the CoC, and no obligation was imposed on Respondent No. 4. The

Respondent No. 4 contended that the Appellant's attempt to hold him liable is

baseless and unsupported by the record.

29. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the applications filed by him, namely

IA No. 3271/2022 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.

Page 16 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

30. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the contempt application (Cont. A.

No. 18/2023) filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority

vide order dated 07.03.2024, which held that there was no wilful disobedience of

the order dated 22.09.2022. The Respondent No. 4 contended that this finding

reinforces that she acted in accordance with his duties and did not violate any

court orders.

31. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the Appellant's claim of financial

hardship due to non-payment of GST is not attributable to Respondent No. 4, as

his role is limited to managing the CIRP in accordance with the Code and CoC

directions. The Respondent No. 4 contended that the Appellant's fees are secured

under the Resolution Plan, and any tax-related issues are a matter of the

Appellant's own compliance.

32. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the impugned order dated 02.02.2024

is lawful and aligns with Section 5(15) and Section 28(1)(a) of the Code, which

govern the raising of interim finance with CoC approval. The Respondent No. 4

contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not err in directing her to explore

interim finance, and the subsequent approval of the Resolution Plan has addressed

the payment issue, rendering the appeal redundant.

33. The Respondent No. 4 submitted that the appeal does not raise any

substantial question of law against her, as her actions were consistent with her

duties as Resolution Professional. The Appellant's fees, forming part of the CIRP

Page 17 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

costs, are adequately provided for in the Resolution Plan, and the SRA's deposit

of Rs. 4,50,65,981/- ensures that the Appellant's legitimate claims are covered.

34. The Respondent No. 4 prayed this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the

present appeal as infructuous, given the approval of the Resolution Plan and the

deposit of CIRP costs by the SRA and to reject the Appellant's prayers against

Respondent No. 4, as no obligation was imposed on her under the orders dated

16.09.2022 and 22.09.2022, and her actions were lawful and within his duties

Findings

35. The limited issue in the present appeal is regarding non-payment of the fee

and charges of the Erstwhile RP of the CD i.e.., Devarajan Raman, Appellant

herein. We have already noted facts and rival contentions of the parties. Several

issues have been raised by the Appellant regarding the conduct of the Respondent

No. 4 and the alleged contempt by the other Respondents for not 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.

Page 18 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

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 and the CoC to consider the same.

38. It is noted that as per Section 5(13) (a) and (b) of the Code, the fees payable

to the Resolution Professional, along with any interim finance, squarely falls

within the ambit of CIRP Costs. The manner of payment of such fees, being an

integral component of CIRP Costs, is expressly provided under Regulations 34

and 34B of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP Regulations"). In terms of Regulation 34B (5) of the

CIRP Regulations, the fees of the Resolution Professional can only be paid from

funds available with the Corporate Debtor; contributions made by the applicant

or members of the CoC and funds raised by way of interim finance.

Page 19 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

In view of above, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly

passed the Impugned Order.

39. We also agree with the pleadings of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that it is

CoC who were necessary party and correctly responsible for CIRP Cost and no

individual member of the CoC can be held responsible for such payments.

40. As regard, the contention of the Appellant is that the Respondent Nos. 1 to

3 gave undertaking before the Adjudicating Authority we take into consideration

the relevant portion of such contention which has been recorded by the

Adjudicating Authority in order dated 22.09.2022 which reads as under :-

"Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the CoC on instructions make statement across the bar that the Fee of the erstwhile Resolution Professional shall be paid as decided by the CoC."

(Emphasis Supplied)

41. From above, it is clear that it is the CoC, on whose instructions, the Sr.

Counsel gave the statement that the Erstwhile Resolution Professional shall be

paid his dues as decided by the CoC thus, the arguments raised by the Appellant

on this ground are not valid.

42. Be that as it may, this issue had cropped up, before us during the pleadings

in hearing in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1628 of 24 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.)

No. 1627 of 24 and this Appellate Tribunal gave the following order on

22.08.2024: -

Page 20 of 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

"the payment owed to the Appellant remains outstanding despite almost 3 years having lapsed from the undertaking of the concerned members of the CoC rendered and recorded in the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority"

(Emphasis Supplied)

43. It has been brought 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

this appeal. We have dismissed both the appeals of Praful Satra, the Suspended

Page 21 of 22 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 687 of 2024

Director of the Corporate Debtor, as such the apprehensions of the Appellant, as

discussed above, no more remain relevant.

46. We note that CIRP Cost has already been deposited by SRA. We further

note that although the CoC has not been made a party here, however all the four

Respondents including the members of the CoC as Respondent No. 1 to

Respondent No. 3, as well as the Resolution Professional as Respondent No. 4,

have committed to make the payments to the Appellant. In fact, the Adjudicating

Authority has already recorded similar facts and observations in the Impugned

Order.

47. Thus, we find that the present appeal has become infructuous, in view of

the recent development, as discussed above.

48. Based on above, we dispose the appeal with liberty to the Appellant to

approach the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the Impugned Order, in case he

finds any grievances later. No cost. I.A., if any, are closed

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Sim

Page 22 of 22