Sandeep Chandna vs Modi Distillery And Others

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1503 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5364, 5421 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Chandna ...Appellant Versus Modi Distillery & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Ms. Mahak Agarwal & Mr. Kapil Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents : Ms. Sonali Karwasa, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)]

24.09.2025 This appeal is filed by the IRP (Erstwhile IRP) of Jai Bhole

Nath Enterprises Private Limited ('Corporate Debtor') being aggrieved

against the order dated 27.07.2023 by which an application bearing I.A. No.

980/ 2019 filed by him for his fee and expenses for the period from

12.04.2019 to 12.05.2019 as IRP and for the period from 12.05.2019 to

30.07.2019 as RP has been rejected.

2. In brief, Modi Distillery (Respondent No. 1) filed an application under

Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') against the

Corporate Debtor which was admitted on 12.04.2019 and the Appellant was

appointed as the IRP.

3. I.A. 980/2019 was dismissed by the Tribunal with the following

observations :-

"11. In view of the above, we are of the view that the IRP has failed to furnish details of expenses with supporting evidence and justification at the relevant period of time

Page 1 of 3 before the COC. In any case, there is no evidence on record to justify the expenses claimed by the IRP. As the proceedings under the Code are strictly time-bound, and a lot of time has lapsed from the relevant period, we are of the view that there is no justification for allowing the claims made by the applicant.

12. In view of the above, IA No. 980/2019 is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly."

4. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he has already received

Rs. 54,509/- towards expenses but his fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- as IRP has not

been paid. He has referred to the letter date 08.05.2019 (Annexure A-4) and

submitted that Respondent No. 1 has admitted to pay atleast the said

amount. The said letter is reproduced as under :-

Page 2 of 3

5. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the letter dated

08.05.2019 is not an admission of the fee to be paid to the Appellant.

6. We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record.

7. Since the issue has been narrowed down to the payment of fee of

Rs. 2,00,000/-, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the letter

dated 08.05.2019, written by Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant, there is an

apparent admission by Respondent No. 1 qua the payment of fee of

Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Appellant.

8. In view therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent

that Respondent No. 1 shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Appellant within 15

days of the passing of this order by way of a demand draft.

9. It is made clear to the Respondent that if this order is not complied

with as directed, then the Appellant shall be at liberty to file a contempt

petition before this court for necessary action.

10. The parties shall bear their own cost. I.A.'s, if any, pending are

hereby disposed of.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim/RR

Page 3 of 3