Manish Sukhani vs Mtk Tooling & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Manish Sukhani ...Appellant Vs MTK Tooling & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Adhavi Nalluri and Mr. TVS Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocates for R-2.

ORDER

23.04.2019: This appeal has been preferred by Interim Resolution

Professional, who also worked as Resolution Professional till he was replaced,

against order dated 24th December, 2018 passed by Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench in the Miscellaneous

Application preferred by the Resolution Professional relating to fees and

expenses incurred by him.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant - Resolution Professional submitted that

the Corporate Debtor has paid less amount of Rs.3,76,000/- against the claim

of Rs.10,41,000/-, which according to the Appellant was approved in the first

meeting of the Committee of Creditors.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of Creditors

submitted that whatever the amount i.e. Rs.3,76,000/- which was ratified in the

meeting of the Committee of Creditors has already been paid. An email dated -2-

24th January, 2019 in respect to the invoices filed by the Appellant has been

enclosed whereby bifurcation of the amount remitted by the Appellant has been

shown. The relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is entitle for a

claim of Rs.7.70 Lakh professional fee but in place of that the Committee of

Creditors arbitrarily fixed it at Rs.50,000/- per month. He further submits that

the Resolution Professional engaged number of persons in view of the

instructions of the Committee of Creditors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 132 of 2019 -3-

5. From the record we find that the Appellant submitted invoice for

expenditure incurred by him, which is as follows:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 132 of 2019 -4-

6. Out of Rs.1,05,368/-, the Committee of Creditors have ratified expenses

of Rs.96,738 plus provided for GST of Rs.42,600/-. We find no error in the

ratification with regard to the actual expenses. Claim against Professional Fee

of Rs.7.70 Lakh is excessive for actual working is of 16 days, though period has

been counted as four and half months. We find no reason to interfere with the

same. In fact, this Appellate Tribunal cannot decide as to what should be the

fee for a Resolution Professional which depends on various factors including

asset and liability of the Corporate Debtor, amount of default and actual time

taken and performance of the Resolution Professional, which can be decided by

the Committee of Creditors and not by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) nor by the Appellate Tribunal (National Company Law

Appellate Tribunal). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) am/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 132 of 2019