Manoj Kumar Singh vs M/S Ebpl Ventures Pvt.Ltd
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 294 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Section 9 admission order is set aside on the basis of a settlement of the operational debt, and the Tribunal has stayed the order before any Committee of Creditors has been constituted and before any further steps under the Code have been taken, an interim resolution professional is entitled only to reimbursement of the expenses actually incurred on publication in a newspaper, and to no fee or other miscellaneous expenses.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh ....Appellant Vs. M/s. EBPL Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Mr. Anshul Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Prachi Johri, Mr. Anuj Tiwari and Mr. Lakshya Sachdeva, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
29.03.2022: I.A No. 873 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant in this
Appeal bringing on record the settlement with the Operational Creditor dated
27.03.2022. As per the settlement, the dispute between the parties have
been settled and payment has been made by Demand Draft dated
25.03.2022 of the settlement amount less TDS.
2. This Appeal was filed against the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by
the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) by which the
Application filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor has been
admitted. It has been noted in our earlier order that the order of 15.03.2022
was uploaded only after court hours on 24.03.2022 and on 25.03.2022, IRP
has issued public notice. Neither CoC has been constituted nor any further 2
steps have been take. The Settlement having been filed and entered between
the parties which have brought on the record, we take the settlement on the
record and set aside the order dated 15.03.2022. We further observe that the
expenses for publication which was incurred by the IRP be paid by the
Appellant on submission of the receipt of the payment of the publication
amount. No other amount is required to be paid to the IRP.
3. The IRP further submitted that the Appellant should be directed to be
make payment for Miscellaneous expenses. In the present case, the
impugned order dated 15.03.2022 was uploaded on 24.03.2022 evening after
Court hours and on the next date, we have stayed the order dated
15.03.2022 directing no further steps to be taken in pursuance of the
impugned order. The IRP made publication on 25.03.2022 i.e. within 24
hours. Within a period of less than 24 hrs the order was stayed by this
Tribunal and we are of the view that IRP is not entitled for any kind of fee or
other expenses except the expenses for publication in the newspaper.
4. The Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 294 of 2022
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