Radico Khaitan Ltd vs Ajay Kumar Aggarwal

IN THE MATTER OF: Radico Khaitan Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Prahsant Kumar, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.05.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the IRP. The Appellant has confined his prayers in the appeal only

with respect to prayer (c) in IA No.978/KB/2024, which application was filed

by the Appellant, who was one of the Operational Creditor and member of the

CoC praying for certain reliefs, which reliefs have been noticed in Para 3 of

the order of the Adjudicating Authority, which is as follows:

"3. The instant application is being filed by Radico Khaitan Limited, hereinafter referred to as the 'Applicant' under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for brevity, 'I&B Code' to seek the following reliefs:

a. Direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to contribute toward the CIRP expenses in proportion to their voting share; and

Cont'd.../ 2

b. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to initiate appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the concerned proportionate CIRP expenses/cost/fee from the Respondent No. 2 and 3 and consequently set aside the finding/observation that his fee is attributable solely to the Applicant; and

c. Direct Respondent No. 1 to seek his fees/CIRP costs in a reasonable manner and strictly as per the CIRP Regulations and the Code of Conduct; and

d. Restrain Respondent no. 2 and Respondent no. 3 from withdrawing their claims before Respondent no. 1 without paying their requisite share of CIRP costs;

and/or

e. Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

2. Appellant's grievance is that the Adjudicating Authority has issued

direction with regard to reliefs (a) and (b) but no order has been passed in

regard to prayer (c). It is submitted that IRP fees was to be determined as per

CIRP Regulations and the Adjudicating Authority has not decided the same.

3. Learned counsel for the IRP submits that in view of the aforesaid ends

of justice be served in remitting the matter before the Adjudicating Authority

for consideration of prayer (c) in IA No.978/KB/2024.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we revive the application IA No.978/KB/2024

in so far as relief (c) is concerned for fresh consideration before the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.697 of 2025 3

Adjudicating Authority. IRP is also allowed time to file Reply to prayer as

made in the Prayer (c), within three weeks from today and it is for the

Adjudicating Authority to take decision on prayer (c) of the application in

accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on the prayers in the application.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice N Sesha Sayee] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.697 of 2025