S3 Electrical And Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Brian Lau & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 186 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's fixation of the fee of an Interim Resolution Professional, made in consequence of an earlier appellate order directing it to determine that fee, does not warrant interference where no ground for interference is shown. A review application against an appellate order is not maintainable within an appeal; a review of such an order lies only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or new facts are brought to the notice of the Tribunal, and absent either, the question of reviewing the order does not arise.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
S3 Electrical and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Brian Lau & Anr. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant : Shri Aditya Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Navneet Kumar Jain, C.A.
ORDER
13.10.2017 By the impugned order dated 31st August, 2017, the learned
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New
Delhi fixed the fee of Interim Resolution Professional in terms of order passed by
this Appellate Tribunal on 2nd August, 2017 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 104/2017 whereby the proceedings against the appellant - Corporate Debtor
were set aside and the Adjudicating Authority was requested to determine the
fee payable to the Interim Resolution Professional.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Interim Resolution
Professional Shri Navneet Kumar Jain, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order whereby the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional has been
fixed.
Insofar the review application against order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed
in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 104 of 2017 is concerned, the said
application is not maintainable in this appeal. In absence of any error apparent on the face of the record and in absence of any new facts brought to our notice,
the question of reviewing the order does not arise.
The appeal is dismissed. Consequentially, the application for review is also
dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] [ Balvinder Singh ] Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
/ns/ac/uk/
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