Sanjay Kumar Ruia vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Kumar Ruia .... Appellant

Vs

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Tayal Chadda, Advocate.

For Respondents:

ORDER

11.09.2019 This Appeal has been preferred by Sanjay Kumar Ruia, the

'Resolution Professional' with prayer for direction to pass appropriate order

relating to his fees and cost of 'Resolution Process' in the light of decision of

this Appellate Tribunal dated 3rd January, 2019 in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No.560 of 2018.

2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

Bench by impugned order dated 8th May, 2019 passed order of 'Liquidation'

and dismissed the application filed by the 'Resolution Professional'. Learned

Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that after the order of

'Liquidation', the Appellant Sanjay Kumar Ruia has been replaced and

another person has been appointed as 'Liquidator'.

3. In view of the fact that the 'Resolution Process' could not succeed and

it resulted in 'Liquidation', we allowed the erstwhile 'Resolution Professional'

to file affidavit showing the correct amount of fees and the actual cost

incurred by him with supported evidence. The Appellant has filed brief note

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 876 of 2019 Page | 1 on the expenditure incurred, showing professional fee of the Company

Secretary, retainer fee of Advocate, office rent etc. in support of the claim of

cost. He has also filed a number of bills and receipt of appearances of other

professionals, defending cost, cost of 32 appearances of Advocate made on

behalf of 'Resolution Professional', travelling expenses for contesting the

Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, the cost for obtaining Demand Draft

for filing before this Appellate Tribunal, printing expenses, Professional fees

etc. It is informed that the bill etc. have been approved by the 'Committee of

Creditors', as well as by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal).

4. On perusal of record, we are satisfied with the brief note of the

expenditure incurred by the Appellant-'Resolution Professional', but without

expressing any opinion or determining the total amount, we remit the matter

to the 'Liquidator', in view of the fact that liquidation proceeding has already

been started. The details of claim as shown in the brief note of expenditure

incurred and spent by 'Resolution Professional', which are stated to have

been approved by the 'Committee of Creditors' and the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), the Appellant will file them

before the 'Liquidator' who on verification record it towards fees and cost of

'Resolution Professional'. If the amount based on bills and ledger have been

approved by the 'Committee of Creditors', the 'Liquidator' cannot reject, the

same being the 'resolution cost' and not claim of any 'creditor'. It is made

clear that the Professional fee and cost incurred by the Appellant, if approved

by the 'Committee of Creditors', it should be allowed as 'resolution cost'.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 876 of 2019 Page | 2

5. We make it clear that the fee of the 'Resolution Professional' and the

cost incurred by him, being 'resolution cost', we have allowed the 'Liquidator'

to determine the claim under Section 40 of the I&B Code, Appellant being

not the 'creditor'. Once the amount is shown as 'fees' and 'resolution cost'

the same to be paid in terms of Section 53 of the I&B Code.

6. The Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

Ash/GC

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 876 of 2019 Page | 3