Saurabh Bharatbhushan Jain vs State Bank Of India & Ors
- CitationComp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 384 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that a direction under the Adjudicating Authority's order to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the Interim Resolution Professional towards his fees and expenses, where sufficient reasons are given for it, does not warrant interference in appeal. Where the Adjudicating Authority imposes costs on an applicant who withdraws an application, the quantum of such costs is reviewable on appeal, and may be reduced where the record shows that the financial creditor and the Interim Resolution Professional had themselves recommended admission of the application, so that the imposition of costs is not justified to that extent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 384 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Saurabh Bharatbhushan Jain ...Appellants Versus State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Keith Varghese, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Ms. Niyati Shah and Ms. Salonee Shukla, Advocates for R4.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
07.03.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing
for Respondent no.4.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2025 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority by which order Adjudicating Authority
permitted the appellant to withdraw Section 94 application. Adjudicating
Authority while permitting withdrawal has also imposed cost of Rs.5 Lacs on
the appellant and further directed the appellant to make payment of Rs. 3
Lacs to the IRP.
3. We find that sufficient reasons have been given by Adjudicating
Authority in issuing direction to pay Rs.3 Lacs to the IRP towards his fees and
expenses which direction need no interference.
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Bank of India and
IRP has already recommended for admission of the application hence, present
was not a case of imposition of cost of Rs.5 Lacs. We find sufficient ground in the submission of the appellant we reduce the cost of Rs.5 Lacs to Rs.
50,000/-.
5. Appeal is disposed of subject to the above.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
2 of 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 384 of 2025
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