AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 1196 of 2026 :- This is an application praying for condonation of 56 days delay in re-filing of the Appeal. We find sufficient cause to condone re-filing delay in paragraph 4 of the application. Delay in re-filing appeal is condoned.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2026 :-
Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.2848 of 2025. The Appellant who was erstwhile Resolution Professional has filed the application praying for reliefs as quoted in paragraph 1 of the order which is as follows:-
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
a)That the Respondent No.2 be directed not to disburse any amount in favour of any of the creditors who are members of Stakeholders Consultative Committee till disposal of the present Application,
b)That the Respondent/SCC be ordered and directed to pay to the Applicant its outstanding fee of sum of Rs 9,12,953/-[Rupees Nine Lakh Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Three Only] of the Applicant.
c)Any other suitable relief or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
RELIEF SOUGHT
a)That the Respondent be directed to pay to the Applicant its outstanding fee of sum of Rs 9,12,953/- [Rupees Nine Lakh Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Three Only] of the Applicant.
(ai)For Cost.
b)any other suitable relief or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The Adjudicating Authority heard the Appellant and the issue was considered with regard to entitlement of liquidator fee. The Adjudicating Authority after perusing the invoices and claim of the Appellant found that the Appellant was entitled to reckon his fee as per third bucket in the relevant Regulations whereas Appellant has calculated his fee as per first bucket and in terms of Regulation 4(2) of the CIRP (Liquidation) Regulations 2016, the Adjudicating Authority held that the realisation of the assets was after one year, hence, the Appellant was entitled for charge his fee as per third bucket and consequently directed that excess amount withdrawn by the Appellant be refunded. In paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the order, detailed calculation have been given by the Adjudicating Authority which are as follows:-
“9.On perusal of said invoice and calculation provided by Applicant at Annexure D2, it is noted that the Applicant had deducted 495 days as exempt period for determination of time period within the realization of assets and distribution of proceeds therefrom took place. At page 40 of the Application, the Applicant has provided following table for determination of period claimed suo-moto as exempt from liquidation period:
ECL Liquidators fees working as on Nov 23, Liquidator changed on 12.11.23 ICD Date 01.12.2020 Sr. Event/Contingency From To No. of day 1. COVID 19 mandatory close down 24.03.2020 30.04.2021 284 2. Medical accident of Liquidator (Exemption granted by NCLT) 03.09.2021 09.11.2021 70 3. Fresh auctions resumed offer Medical accident 09.11.2021 29.03.2022 141 TOTAL DAYS TIME ELAPSED
TOTAL DAYS FROM LIQUIDATION RESOLUTION TILL
495 1,074 EFFECTIVE LIQUIDATION PROCESS PERIOD 579 10.The Applicant has computed fees payable to him in the second bucket i.e. realization within next six months as the period from liquidation commencement date till date of auction after excluding the period of 495 days comes to 354 days. However, we could not find any logic for excluding period of 141 days taken for period of another 70 days on medical ground resuming fresh auction even if the period of another 70 days stated to have been excluded by this Tribunal on medical ground (for which no order is placed on record). Accordingly, in our considered view, the period of 141 days can not be excluded and the realization as per applicant's own determination could be completed within 495 days only. The period of 495 days falls after 1 year thus the applicant was eligible for fees only at the rates prescribed in the third bucket i.e. after 1 year. The Respondent No. 2 has determined the fees payable to the Applicant as per third bucket and we do not find any infirmity in said calculation. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the applicant has already withdrawn amounts towards his fees payable in terms of Regulation 4(2) in excess of what was due to him and is liable to refund the amounts so withdrawn in excess along with GST. The Respondent No. 2 has determined the fees payable to the applicant as follows:
Liquidator fee as per regulation
Amount realised Estimated liquidation cost Net amount realised (Excluding liquidation cost) Amount Distributed to Stakeholders 53,02,85,406 35000000 49,52,85,406 48,01,38,870 Percentage of fee on amount realised/distributed (Excluding liquidation cost)
Amount Realisation in first six month In next six month Thereafter Fees Balance On first 10000000 5.00% 3.75% 1.88% 188000 48,52,85,406 On next 90000000 3.75% 2.80% 1.41% 1269000 39,52,85,406 On next 400000000 2.50% 1.83% 0.94% 3715683 On next 500000000 1.25% 0.94% 0.51% 0 On further sum >500000000 0.25% 1.90% 0.10% 0 Total A 5172583
FEE ON DISTRIBUTION Amount Distribution in first six months Fees On first 10000000 2.50% 1.88% 0.94% ***94000 47,01,38,870 On next 90000000 1.88% 1.40% 0.71% ***639000 38,01,38,870 On next 400000000 1.25% 0.94% 0.47% ***1786653 On next 500000000 0.63% 0.47% 0.26% ******* On further sum >500000000 0.13% 0.95% 0.05% ****** Total B 2519653 TOTAL (C+A+B) 7692336 Fee calculated and charged by erstwhile liquidator 14954048 Excess fee Charged 7261713 11.As per above working, the total fees payable to the Applicant comes to Rs.76,92,336/- plus GST @ 18% thereon and out of pocket expenses of Rs. The applicant has already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,182/ claimed in Invoice at Annexure D1. The Applicant has already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,49,54,048/- plus GST. Thus, the applicant is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 72,51,530/- (Rs. 1,49,54,048 - Rs. 76,92,336 - Rs. 10,182) plus GST @ 18% thereon amounting to Rs. 13,05,275/- wrongfully collected from the account of Corporate Debtor. The said amount shall be refunded back within 30 days from the date of last withdrawal of money towards his fees and shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. if not paid within the period so allowed.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the Appellant was suffering and was hospitalised, hence, the period of 141 days which Item No.3 in Paragraph 9 was claimed which has not been granted by the Adjudicating Authority.
When we look into Item No.3, it is “fresh auctions resumed offer Medical accident” for which 141 days sought to be excluded from the date when realisation was made. The fact that auction was resumed after 141 days cannot be ground to peg the realisation to any earlier date, actual realisation by the Appellant were all after one year and the Adjudicating Authority itself has excluded 495 days including the period of COVID-19. The Adjudicating Authority has already taken a liberal view in excluding the period and has rightly come to the conclusion that fee of the Appellant is entitled to be paid as per third bucket, hence, the Appellant/Applicant has withdrawn the excess amount from the liquidation estates. Submission of the Counsel for the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has not correctly excluded the relevant period claimed by the Appellant/ Applicant cannot be accepted. We do not find any error in the order impugned. The Appeal is dismissed.