Goutam Rakshit vs Punjab National Bank & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 42 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order rests on the following reasoning, which it states directly. Where the creditor has accepted a one-time settlement proposal and the settlement amount has been paid, the continuation of the corporate insolvency resolution process is no longer necessary, and the appellate tribunal may set aside the admission order and close the CIRP on that basis. Where an insolvency resolution professional has not been paid his expenses or fee, the professional's entitlement is not extinguished by closure of the process; he may apply to the Adjudicating Authority for his fee, to be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Goutam Rakshit ...Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Parkar Alam, Mr. Vikas Pal, Ms. Simran Gill, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Ms. Dyuti Ghai, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Deeptanshu Chandra Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
11.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been
filed against the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) admitting Section 7
application filed by Punjab National Bank.
2. Learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that OTS sanctioned
proposal by the Bank has been accepted by the appellant and under the said
OTS proposal amount of Rs. 10 crores have been paid. Learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that terms of OTS shall be observed. Learned Counsel for
the Bank submits that in view of the aforesaid there is no necessity of
continuing the CIRP any further.
3. Learned Counsel for the IRP submits that expenses of the IRP has not yet
been paid.
-2-
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that appellant shall make the
payment of all expenses of the IRP subject to necessary voucher and bills
submitted in support of the same.
5. Learned Counsel for the IRP submits that IRP has also entitled for fee on
which counsel for the appellant submits that interim order was passed by this
Tribunal on 20.01.2023 and virtually IRP has not done anything except
publication.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we grant liberty to the IRP to file appropriate
application to the Adjudicating Authority for fee, if any, which may be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal. Order impugned is
set aside. CIRP is closed.
8. In case of breach of OTS proposal parties shall be at liberty to move an
appropriate application.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 42 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free