Rajeev Sharma vs Deepak Gupta & Anr
- CitationContempt Case (AT) No. 27 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A contempt of the Tribunal's order directing payment of an insolvency professional's expenses cannot arise unless the professional has first submitted a bill for actual expenses incurred and the directed payment within the stipulated period has not been made; where no such bill is averred to have been submitted, there is no violation of the order and the contempt application is unfounded.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Reshma Mittal ...Appellant Versus Deepak Gupta ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocate.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.10.2024 : This Contempt Application has been filed for non-
Compliance of the Order dated 09.09.2022. In Paragraph 32, this Court
issued following directions:
"32. Now coming to the submission of IRP regarding her fees and expenses, it is to be noted that the impugned order was passed on 04.05.2022 and. the Appeal was immediately filed on 09.05.2022 and this Tribunal passed an interim order on 13.05.2022 directing the IRP not to constitute the CoC. Subsequently, by another order dated 03.06.2022, a' direction was issued not to take any further steps in the CIRP process. In the impugned order Adjudicating Authority has directed the Financial Creditor to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the IRP. In addition to amount directed by Adjudicating Authority of Rs.2,00,000/-, the IRP shall be entitled to actual expenses incurred by her in publication and other actual expenses incurred by her. On submission of bill for actual expenses incurred by the IRP, Respondent No.1 (who fried Section 7 Application) shall make the payment of expenses within a period of two weeks."
2. In the entire Contempt Application there is no averment that when the
bill of actual expenses has been submitted to Respondent No. 1.
3. The question of violation will arise only when bill has been submitted
and payments have not been made of the expenses.
The Contempt Application is wholly unfounded and is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Contempt Case (AT) No. 27 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 541 of 2022 2 of 2
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