State Bank Of India vs Brijender Singh Deswal & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: State Bank of India ...Appellant Vs Brijender Singh Deswal & Ors. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Nibruti Samal, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

23.04.2019: The Appellant - 'State Bank of India' is member of Committee

of Creditors having 70.17% voting right. When the question raised as to who will

pay the corporate insolvency resolution costs incurred by the Interim Resolution

Professional/ Operational Creditor, the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench passed following order:-

"ORDER

Notice to the CMD of State Bank of India who is the major

constituent of the COC in this case. The COC has not

reimbursed the RP/Operational Creditor. The grievance in the

present case is the reluctance of the SBI, a major constituent

of the COC having 71.7% of the voting rights, to share the

initial CIR costs incurred by the IRP/Operational Creditor.

Upon appointment of the RP, the initial costs have to be

defrayed by the COC which would be recoverable as the CIR -2-

costs. Their defiance to meet the costs is unacceptable. Last

opportunity is being granted to them for necessary compliance

failing which their right to stake their claim would have serious

consequences and may culminate in notice to the Ministry of

Finance and the regulator RBI.

Mr. Alok Kumar, Counsel is present on their behalf. He is

directed to ensure payment is made.

Ms. Nibruti Samal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the RP

submits that no cooperation has been extended by the Ex-

Directors other than giving the old financial data of 2016.

Notice to be issued to the Ex-Directors to be present in

Court on 27th February, 2019. Dasti"

2. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant we find no ground to

interfere with the substantive part of the impugned order dated 20th February,

2019. It has already been made clear that the initial cost is to be defrayed by

the Committee of Creditor which will be recoverable as CIR costs.

3. Other order dated 6th February, 2019 relates to extension of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process period, which has been allowed. However, such

part of the order is not under challenge. The grievance of the Appellant is with

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 214-215 of 2019 -3-

regard to the reimbursement of amount to the Interim Resolution Professional/

Creditor. The said order having now merged with order dated 20th February,

2019, we find no reason to interfere with order dated 6th February, 2019.

4. So far fee of Interim Resolution Professional is concerned this Appellate

Tribunal having already directed by order dated 5th March, 2019, no further

order required to be issued. If the resolution cost incurred by Interim Resolution

Professional has been ratified and fee has been determined by the Committee of

Creditors, such amount be released. The appeal stands disposed of with

aforesaid observations. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) am/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 214-215 of 2019