Naveen Kumar Jain vs Committee Of Creditors Of Kdk ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 882 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, including its decision to replace the Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is not open to judicial review and is not justiciable beyond the limited scope of such review. The fee payable to an insolvency professional, where fixed by the Committee of Creditors under Regulation 33(3) of the CIRP Regulations, is a matter within the Committee's determination, and an amount so fixed (here Rs.50,000/-) does not warrant interference by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Naveen Kumar Jain ....Appellant Vs. Committee of Creditors of K.D.K Enterprises Pvt. ....Respondents Ltd. & Ors.
Present:
Appellant: Mr. Harsh Tikko and Mr. Naveent Kumar Jain, Advocates.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
03.11.2020: After hearing learned counsel for the Appellant, we find that the Appellant who had been appointed as Interim Resolution Professional, had approached the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court-V, New Delhi, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) for seeking payment of fee and staying of his replacement. The prayer was declined on the ground that the wisdom of Committee of Creditors is beyond the pale of challenge. In the instant case, the sole Financial Creditor (Indian Bank) has voted to replace the Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the 'I&B Code' which means the replacement is sought with 100% voting shares while the requisite vote is 66%. It is well settled that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors which covers matters including the replacement of the Resolution Professional does not fall within the limited scope of judicial review and is not justiciable .
Contd/-.............
-2- In so far as the issue regarding fee is conce rned, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that under Regulation 33(3) of the IBBI, fee has been fixed by the Committee of Creditors at Rs.50,000/- which does not brook interference. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
AR/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 882 of 2020
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