In the matter of Kaanha Shipping Private Limited

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AMARAVATI BENCH (Through Hybrid Mode) Item No.2 IA (IBC)/210/2025 in CP (IB)/133/10/AMR/2022 (Under Liquidation) IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Kaanha Shipping Private Limited … Corporate Applicant Under Section: 10, 60(5) of IBC, 2016 Rule: 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 Order delivered on 07.11.2025 CORAM: SHRI UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA SHRI KISHORE VEMULAPALLI HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) PRESENT: In IA (IBC)/210/2025: For the Applicant/Liquidator : Mr. Kantipudi Venkata Raju For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : None ORDER Order pronounced and recorded vide separate sheets. The Application bearing IA (IBC)/210/2025 in CP (IB)/133/10/AMR/2022 filed by Liquidator is disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/- (UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA) (KISHORE VEMULAPALLI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Jahnavi

AMARAVATI BENCH AT MANGALAGIRI (Exercising powers of Adjudicating Authority under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) IA (IBC)/210/2025 In CP(IB)/133/10/AMR/2022 IN THE MATTER OF CP (IB)/133/10/AMR/2022: KAANHA SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED Registered Office at: Door No. 15-14-4/2, Budhavarapu Gardens, Krishna Nagar, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam-530002. ….. Corporate Applicant Application under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. IA(IBC)/210/2025: Between Mr. Kantipudi Venkata Raju, Liquidator of Kaanha Shipping Private Limited, Address: 4 -198, Manikya Nagar, VTC, Kakinada, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh-533005 …… Applicant AND 1. Board of Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam Traffic Manager, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Ambedkar Bhavan, Port Area, Visakhapatnam- 530035. ….. Respondent No.1 2. Sub-Regional Office, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Visakhapatnam D No. 45-57-21/1, RR House, Narasimha Nagar, Akkayyapalem Highway Road, Visakhapatnam- 530024. ….. Respondent No.2

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Order delivered on: 07.11.2025

Coram: HON’BLE SHRI KISHORE VEMULAPALLI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Counsels/ Parties present: For the Applicant : Mr. Kantipudi Venkata Raju, Liquidator For Respondent No. 1 : None For Respondent No. 2 : None [ORDER] [PER: BENCH] This Interlocutory Application has been filed by Sri Kantipudi Venkata Raju, the Liquidator of the Corporate Applicant, i.e., Kaanha Shipping Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Liquidator” or “Applicant”), vide dairy no. 1411 dated 18.07.2025, under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “IBC” or “Code”) read with Rule 11 of National company Law Tribunal Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “NCLT Rules, 2016”) against Board of Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred as the “Respondent No.1”) and Sub-Regional Office, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred as the “Respondent No.2”) seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To allow the instant application.

(ii) To direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to contribute Rs.16,95,474.80 (Rupees sixteen lakh ninety five thousand four hundred seventy four and paise eighty only) towards liquidation cost consisting of fee and liquidation expenses from 22.02.02024 till 21.06.2025 in the claim admitted ratio of Rs. 16,93,270.80 (at 99.87%) and Rs. 2,204/- (at 0.13 %) respectively.

NCLT, Amaravati Bench (iii) To direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to continue contributing in the same ratio as per (ii) above, towards the monthly tranches of bills of liquidation cost that will be submitted by the liquidator till accomplishment of the assignment of liquidation.

(iv) To pass any other order(s), as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Facts of the Case:

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant in the Application are as follows:

(i) This Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.02.2024 admitted the Application filed under Regulation 33(1), 33(2) & 34(1) read with Section 60(5) of the Code and thereafter liquidation qua the Corporate Debtor was initiated. Vide the said order, this Adjudicating Authority suo-moto appointed the Applicant, Mr. Kantipudi Venkata Raju, as the Liquidator (Annexure-1 of the Application). Subsequently, the Applicant issued the Public Announcement in Form B on 26.02.2024 by inviting claims from the creditors and constituted the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “SCC”) and filed the List of Stakeholders with the following two operational creditors with this Adjudicating Authority on 22.04.2024, which was taken on record on 03.05.2024: Sl. Name Claim Claim Secured/ Voting Remarks No Received Admitted Unsecured Share (Rs.) (Rs.) (%) 1 Board of Visakhapatnam 8,06,99,509 8,06,99,509 Unsecured 99.87 Operational Port Authority Creditors 2 Sub-Regional Office, 1,03,412 1,03,412 Unsecured 00.13 Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Visakhapatnam Grand Total 8,08,02,921 8,08,02,921 100.00

NCLT, Amaravati Bench (ii) As per the order of liquidation, there are no financial creditors and hence Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred as the “CoC”) was constituted with the two operational creditors i.e., Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with voting shares of 99.75% and 0.25% respectively during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as the “CIRP”). During liquidation also, only two operational creditors’ claims were admitted with voting share of 99.87% and 0.13% respectively.

(iii) As per the order of liquidation, the Corporate Debtor does not have any assets and operations.

(iv) As per the order of liquidation, the СоC resolved the fee of the liquidator as Rs.1,00,000/- only per month and his expenses at actuals.

(v) The Regulation 39B of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the “CIRP Regulations”) provides as below: “39B- Meeting liquidation cost (1) While approving a resolution plan under sub-section (4) of section 30 or deciding to liquidate the corporate debtor under sub-section (2) of section 33, the committee may make a best estimate of the amount required to meet liquidation costs, in consultation with the resolution professional, in the event an order for liquidation is passed under section 33. (2) The committee shall make a best estimate of the value of the liquid assets available to meet the liquidation costs, as estimated in sub-regulation (1). (3) Where the estimated value of the liquid assets under sub-regulation (2) is less than the estimated liquidation costs under sub-regulation (1), the committee shall approve a plan providing for contribution for meeting the difference between the two. (4) The resolution professional shall submit the plan approved under sub regulation (3) to the Adjudicating Authority while filing the approval or decision of the committee under section 30 or 33, as the case may be.” (vi) Both the respondents as operational creditors were the only members of the CoC and are only members of SCC and there are no financial creditors.

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

It was the CoC, which resolved the fee of the liquidator as Rs.1,00,000/-only per month and his expenses as actuals vide the order of liquidation.

(vii) When they rejected to contribute towards the Liquidator’s fee, which they are obligated to do so, as per Regulation 39B of CIRP Regulations, the Applicant preferred an IA with this Adjudicating Authority vide IA (IBC)/132/2024 with the following prayer: “To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to contribute Rs.1,18,388/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand three hundred eighty eight only) towards liquidation cost from 22.02.2024 to 21.03.2024 in the claim admitted ratio of Rs.1,18,092.00 (99.75%) and Rs.296.00 (0.25%) respectively and to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to continue contributing in the same ratio towards the monthly tranches of bills of liquidation cost that will be submitted by the liquidator till accomplishment of the assignment of liquidation”. (viii) While disposing of the IA (IBC)/132/2024 on 23.04.2025, this Adjudicating Authority directed the liquidator to put up the matter before SCC in terms of Regulation 31A of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the “Liquidation Regulations”) to reconsider the issue of the payment of the Liquidator’ fee and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with the law within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order (Annexure-2 of the Application).

(ix) Accordingly, the Applicant conducted 5th SCC Meeting on 09.05.2025 and at Agenda Item No. 3, while quoting Regulation 31A of Liquidation Regulations and Regulation 39B of CIRP Regulations, proposed a resolution as below: “Resolved that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble NCLT, Amaravati Dt. 23.04.2025 in IA (IBC)/132/2024 in 133/10/AMR/2022, after thorough discussion in the SCC meeting, it is decided to reconsider the issue of payment of liquidator's fee at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and actual expenses, as mentioned in the liquidation order, since liquidation commencement date i.e. 22.02.2024 till accomplishment of the assignment of liquidation and also decided to contribute such amount by the members of the SCC in the Voting Share Ratio of 99.87% by M/s Visakhapatnam Port Authority and 0.13% by M/s Sub-Regional Office,

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Visakhapatnam and such approval is in compliance with the IB Code and regulations made thereunder”. (x) In the 5th SCC Meeting held on 09.05.2025 both members of SCC were present and the resolution was proposed under E-voting. While the Respondent No.2 participated in E-voting on 16.05.2025, Respondent No.1 made inordinate delay in voting and with many extensions, finally voted on 20.06.2025. As per the result, both the SCC Members with 100% voting disagreed for the resolution. Surprisingly, the members of CoC acted contrary to their own resolution regarding fixation of Liquidator’s fee and expenses, as mentioned in the liquidation order, while unanimously proposing the Corporate Debtor for liquidation.

(xi) So far, the Applicant submitted 16 tranches of bills and as on 22.06.2025 (covering period from 22.02.2024 to 21.06.2025), the amount of fee and expenses receivable by the liquidator is as follows: Fee (Rs.) Liquidation Expenses spent by Total amount Liquidator from his own funds (Rs.) receivable (Rs.) 16,00,000.00 95,474.80 16,95,474.80 (xii) The Applicant, as a responsible Insolvency Professional and as an Advocate with lot of respect for the judiciary and commitment for the assignment, spent towards liquidation cost from his feeble pension income besides being non-receipt of fee. (xiii) The provisions of Part III of The Constitution of India at Article 19 with the fundamental rights guarantees six freedoms to Indian citizens, forming the foundation of a democratic society with one being “Freedom to Practise Any Profession or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade, or Business (Article 19(1)(g))” which ensures the right to engage in lawful economic activities. Accordingly, the Applicant, in pursuit of his livelihood as an Insolvency

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Professional undertook the present assignment, is forced to spend from his thin income source towards this assignment.

3. During the course of hearing held on 05.06.2025, this Adjudicating Authority directed the Registry to issue notice to the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 by informing the date of hearing. In compliance of the order dated 05.06.2025, the Registry issued notice to the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 by way of an email. However, there was no representation on behalf of the Respondents either by way of a Counsel or in person and also not filed any Counter Affidavit to the Application.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Liquidator and perused the record carefully.

5. The present Application has been filed by the Liquidator before this Adjudicating Authority for seeking directions to the Respondents to contribute towards liquidation cost consisting of liquidator fee and expenses from 22.02.02024 till 21.06.2025 in the claim admitted ratio of Rs.16,93,270.80 (at 99.87%) and Rs.2,204/- (at 0.13%) respectively and to continue contributing towards liquidation cost till the completion of liquidation process. The Liquidator in the Application referred to Regulation 39B of CIRP Regulations, but he has ignored the Explanation given thereto, which is reproduced below: “Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, ‘liquidation costs’ shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (ea) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation (2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.” 6. As per clause (ea) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation (2) of Liquidation Regulations, liquidation cost broadly, comprises of liquidator fee and cost/ expenses incurred by the liquidator. The extract of the above clause is reproduced below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench “liquidation cost” under clause (16) of section 5 means- (i) fee payable to the liquidator under regulation 4; (ii) remuneration payable by the liquidator under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 7; (iii) costs incurred by the liquidator under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 24; (iv) costs incurred by the liquidator for preserving and protecting the assets, properties, effects and actionable claims, including secured assets, of the corporate debtor; (v) costs incurred by the liquidator in carrying on the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern; (vi) interest on interim finance for a period of twelve months or for the period from the liquidation commencement date till repayment of interim finance, whichever is lower; (vii) the amount repayable to contributories under sub-regulation (3) of regulation 2A; (viii) any other cost incurred by the liquidator which is essential for completing the liquidation process: Provided that the cost, if any, incurred by the liquidator in relation to compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), if any, shall not form part of liquidation cost.” 7. The Liquidator’s Fee is discussed in Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations, which has been amended time to time. The date of liquidation order in the instant case is 22.02.2024, therefore, the Liquidation Regulations as on 22.02.2024 would be applicable in the present case, which is reproduced below: “4. Liquidator’s fee. (1) The fee payable to the liquidator shall be in accordance with the decision taken by the committee of creditors under regulation 39D of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. (1A) Where no fee has been fixed under sub-regulation (1), the consultation committee may fix the fee of the liquidator in its first meeting. (2) In cases other than those covered under sub-regulation (1) and (1A), the liquidator shall be entitled to a fee- (a) at the same rate as the resolution professional was entitled to during the corporate insolvency resolution process, for the period of compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); and (b) as a percentage of the amount realised net of other liquidation costs, and of the amount distributed, for the balance period of liquidation, as under:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Amount of Realisation/ Percentage of fee on the amount Distribution (In rupees) realised / distributed in the first in the next thereafter six months six months Amount of Realisation (exclusive of liquidation costs) On the first 1 crore 5.00 3.75 1.88 On the next 9 crore 3.75 2.80 1.41 On the next 40 crore 2.50 1.88 0.94 On the next 50 crore 1.25 0.94 0.51 On further sums realized 0.25 0.19 0.10 Amount Distributed to Stakeholders On the first 1 crore 2.50 1.88 0.94 On the next 9 crore 1.88 1.40 0.71 On the next 40 crore 1.25 0.94 0.47 On the next 50 crore 0.63 0.48 0.25 On further sums distributed 0.13 0.10 0.05 Clarification: For the purposes of clause (b), it is hereby clarified that where a liquidator realises any amount, but does not distribute the same, he shall be entitled to a fee corresponding to the amount realised by him. Where a liquidator distributes any amount, which is not realised by him, he shall be entitled to a fee corresponding to the amount distributed by him. (3) Where the fee is payable under clause (b) of sub-regulation (2), the liquidator shall be entitled to receive half of the fee payable on realisation only after such realised amount is distributed. Clarification: Regulation 4 of these regulations, as it stood before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 shall continue to be applicable in relation to the liquidation processes already commenced before the coming into force of the said amendment Regulations.” 8. As per the Regulation 4 (1) of the Liquidation Regulations, the liquidator fee shall be in accordance with the decision taken by the CoC under Regulation 39D of the CIRP Regulations. The Regulation 39D of the CIRP Regulations provides that the CoC, while recommending the liquidation, may fix the liquidator fee. The extract of Regulation 39D of the CIRP Regulations is reproduced below: “39D. Fee of the liquidator- While approving a resolution plan under section 30 or deciding to liquidate the corporate debtor under section 33, the committee may, in consultation with the resolution professional, fix the fee payable to the liquidator, if an order for liquidation is passed under section 33, for – (a) the period, if any, used for compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013;

NCLT, Amaravati Bench (b) the period, if any, used for sale under clauses (e) and (f) of regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016; and (c) the balance period of liquidation.” 9. On perusal of the minutes of 2nd CoC meeting held on 08.11.2023, in which, vide Agenda item no. 8, the resolution for liquidation was passed, it is noted that the CoC vide Agenda Item No. 8B has approved the tentative and estimated liquidation cost as per Regulation 2(ea) of Liquidation Process Regulations amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-only. The relevant extracts of the Agenda Item No. 8 (8A to 8E) of the minutes of the above CoC meeting are reproduced below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

10. The Liquidator has contended that his fee was fixed in Para 2 (iv) of Order dated 22.02.2024 of this Adjudicating Authority. We observe that Para 2 (iv) is the facts stated in the Application filed by the erstwhile RP and the operative part of the order

NCLT, Amaravati Bench is Para 4, in which the liquidator fees has been discussed in point (h), which states that the Liquidator would be entitled to fees in terms of Section 38 (4) of the Code. The relevant extracts of the Order dated 22.02.2024 of this Adjudicating Authority is reproduced below:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

11. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 34(8) of the Code. We observe that Section 34 of the Code states that the liquidator fee shall be in such proportion to the value of the liquidation estate assets, as may be specified by the IBBI, which shall be paid to the Liquidator from the proceeds of the liquidation estate under section 53 of the Code. The relevant extracts of Section 34 of the Code are reproduced below: “34. Appointment of liquidator and fee to be paid. – xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (8) An insolvency professional proposed to be appointed as a liquidator shall charge such fee for the conduct of the liquidation proceedings and in such proportion to the value of the liquidation estate assets, as may be specified by the Board. (9) The fees for the conduct of the liquidation proceedings under sub-section (8) shall be paid to the liquidator from the proceeds of the liquidation estate under section 53.” 12. The IBBI has framed the Liquidation Regulations, and Regulation 4 of which discusses about the Liquidator fee. Accordingly, in the instant case, the Liquidator fees needs to be determined as per Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations, which states that if no fee is fixed by the CoC, the SCC may fix the liquidator fee in its first meeting and if both CoC and SCC have not fixed the liquidator fee, it shall be in accordance with Regulation 4(2) of the Liquidation Regulations.

13. We have already noted that the CoC has not fixed the liquidator fees. Now we consider to examine, whether the liquidator fees was fixed by the SCC in the first meeting. The Liquidator, vide Diary No.1696 dated 19.08.2025 filed (in IA(IBC)/175/2025) the minutes of the first meeting of the SCC held on 01.03.2024, wherein the discussions regarding Liquidator fee and expenses have been recorded in Item No. 5 and 6, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

14. It is also noted from the discussion at Agenda Item No. 6 that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 had informed their unwillingness to contribute any amount regarding Liquidator Fee and expenses. Therefore, no fees was fixed in the first SCC meeting.

15. When the SCC in its first meeting expressed their unwillingness to contribute towards the Liquidator Fee and expenses, the Liquidator, vide Diary No. 512 dated 19.04.2024, filed Interlocutory Application bearing no. IA(IBC)/132/2024 before this Adjudicating Authority seeking the following reliefs: i. Payment of liquidation fee amounting to Rs.1,18,388/- per month in the admitted ratio of 99.75% and 0.25% by R1 and R2, respectively; and ii. A direction to R1 and R2 to continue contributing in the same proportion towards the monthly liquidation costs until the completion of the liquidation process.

16. We further note that in the second, third and fourth meetings of the SCC held on 23.09.2024, 24.12.2024 and 28.03.2025 respectively the Liquidator informed that the matter being sub-judice in view of the IA(IBC)/132/2024 filed by him, no discussion is required and therefore, no discussion/ decision took place in the SCC meetings. The relevant extracts of the minutes of the above meetings are reproduced below: Second meeting of the SCC held on 23.09.2024

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Third meeting of the SCC held on 24.12.2024

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Fourth meeting of the SCC held on 28.03.2025:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

17. The IA (IBC)/132/2024 filed by the Liquidator was listed for hearings on 26.04.2024, 27.06.2024, 08.08.2024, 23.10.2024, 02.10.2025, 14.02.2025, 26.02.2025, before it was posted for final hearing on 23.04.2025 and this Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 23.04.2025, while disposing of the IA, directed the Liquidator to put up the matter again before the SCC in terms of Regulation 31A of the Liquidation Regulations to reconsider the issue of payment of the Liquidator’s fee and to take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

18. In compliance of the above order, the Liquidator conducted 5th SCC meeting on 09.05.2025, which was attended by both the Respondents and the resolution placed before the SCC to reconsider the issue of payment of liquidator's fee at Rs.1,00,000/-only per month and actual expenses was disagreed with 100% voting rights. The relevant extracts of the Minutes of SCC Meeting along with the results of e-voting are produced below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the liquidator fees was fixed neither in the CoC meeting nor in SCC meetings. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Liquidator fee needs to be determined in terms of Regulation 4(2)(b) and 4 (3) of the Liquidation Regulations. In this regard, we also rely on the judgement of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Kannan Tiruvengadam, Liquidator Vs. Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1574 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6190, 6192 of 2025 Decided on 15.10.2025] wherein Hon’ble NCLAT was of the view that when the CoC did not fix the Liquidator's remuneration at the time of recommending liquidation under Section 33 of the Code, and the SCC failed to fix the fee in its first meeting, the Liquidator shall be entitled to remuneration strictly in terms of Regulation 4(2) of the NCLT, Amaravati Bench

Liquidation Regulations. The relevant extract of the Hon’ble NCLAT judgement is reproduced below:

20. We also note from the submission of the Liquidator that the Corporate Debtor does not have any assets and therefore, there is no amount realised from the assets of the Corporate Debtor. However, we observe from the Provisional Balance Sheet as on 30.11.2022 filed by the Corporate Applicant along with Company Petition under section 10 of the IBC that the Corporate Debtor had the Assets having the book value

NCLT, Amaravati Bench of Rs.942,22,215/- as on 30.11.2022. The relevant extracts of the Balance Sheet are reproduced below:

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

21. It is observed that, there is nothing on record to show, what efforts have been made by the Liquidator to realize the value of above assets and also if the details of Assets submitted by the Corporate Applicant were not correct why the PUFE applications have not been initiated against the Suspended Board of Directors. In view of the above, we hereby direct the Liquidator to submit the details of efforts made by him to realize the above assets of the Corporate debtor.

NCLT, Amaravati Bench

22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hereby order that that the Liquidator would be entitled to fee as a percentage of the amount realised net of other liquidation costs, and of the amount distributed in terms of Regulation 4(2)(b) and 4 (3) of the Liquidation Regulations.

23. Accordingly, the IA (IBC)/210/2025 is hereby disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/- Sd/- Umesh Kumar Shukla Kishore Vemulapalli Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Naila