Gulshan Gaba vs Surinder Juneja & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 929 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a subsequent adjudicating authority order on the quantum of an erstwhile interim resolution professional's remuneration is contrary to an earlier order of the same authority that directed the committee of creditors to resolve the issue and, failing that, left the matter to be referred to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the later order is liable to be set aside as inconsistent with the earlier direction; the quantum of fees payable to the erstwhile interim resolution professional is to be determined through the reference to the Board contemplated by that earlier order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Gulshan Gaba ....Appellant Vs. Surinder Juneja & Anr. ..Respondents
Present For Appellant: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Priti & Mr. Gulshan Gaba, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. P Nagesh, Mr. Shivam W adhwa & Mr. Surinder Juneja, For R-1.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
29.10.2020: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant Shri Rakesh
Kumar and Learned Counsel Shri P. Nagesh representing the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that by the Impugned Order dated
21.09.2020 Adjudicating Authority has fixed and directed CoC to pay
remuneration to the Applicant/erstwhile IRP to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- per
month for the period for which he has worked after excluding the earlier
payments and the balance payment shall be made within a period of three
weeks from the date of this order. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further
submits that this Order is just contrary to the order passed earlier by the
Adjudicating Authority on 07.01.2019 in that Order Learned Adjudica ting
Authority has directed the CoC to have another meeting in order to resolve the
issue and decide the amount to be paid to present IRP. If the deadlock cannot 2
be resolved, let the matter be referred to IBBI by any of the Parties for deciding
the quantum of fees payable to the 'Interim Resolution Professional'.
We are of the view that the Impugned Order is just contrary to the earlier
order dated 07.01.2019, therefore, the Impugned Order is set aside. However,
in the light of the earlier Order dated 07.01.2019 aggrieved party may refer the
matter to IBBI for deciding the quantum of fees payable to erstwhile IRP.
With the aforesaid, the Appeal is allowed, however, no order as to cost.
We hope and trust that if any Party refers the matter to IBBI then IBBI shall
decide the quantum of fees expeditiously preferably within three months from
the date of reference.
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Sim/nn
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