NCLAT (04.07.2022) In Bank of India, Vs. Ms. Kalpana G & Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 342, 343, 344, 345 & 346 of 2022] held that;
This ‘Tribunal’, comes to a resultant conclusion that the `Remuneration’ of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. (Rupees One Lakh Only), claimed by the ‘Former Liquidator’, after discharging her duties as ‘Liquidator’ and Rs. 25,000/- p.m. (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) claimed by her, to the `Support Team of Liquidator’, from 05/01/2022, till the date of handing over of the documents on 25/06/2022, and physical possession of the Corporate Debtor’s properties to the ‘new Liquidator’, on 14/09/2022, is found by this ‘Tribunal’ to be a ‘reasonable’ and a ‘moderate Claim(s)’ and the `Stakeholders Consultation Committee’, is directed to earnestly, consider and approve the same,
Excerpts of the Order;
‘Heard’ the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Bank’. For ‘Respondent No. 1 / Liquidator’ (Erstwhile Liquidator)’, Ms. Kalpana. G, appears. For ‘Respondent No. 2 / Present Liquidator’, Mr. Nithin Pavuluri, appears, in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (INS.) Nos. 342, 343, 344, 345 and 346 of 2022.
\
# 2. The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’, while passing the `Order’ in IA No. 150/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 157/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 154/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 174/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 152/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 158/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 153/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 160/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 151/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 159/10/AMR/2019 on 03/08/2022 at Paragraph No. 4, had clearly observed the following:
4. “So far as the fee of the liquidator is concerned, the claim seems to be moderate and reasonable. Hence the SCC shall consider and approve the same, as prayed for, if otherwise found feasible.” and consequently, `allowed’, the `Application’.
# 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Bank’ (in all `Appeals’), the ‘1st Respondent’, is statutorily estopped from abandoning her office to act as the ‘Liquidator’ of the Corporate Debtor’, in a ‘premature manner’, without completing the `Assignment’, in question. To put it differently, the plea of the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Bank’, is that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Amaravati Bench, Mangalagiri’, had committed an `error’, in entertaining the IA No. 150/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 157/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 154/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 174/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 152/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 158/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 153/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 160/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 151/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 159/10/AMR/2019 on 03/08/2022, filed by the ‘1st Respondent’, for discharging her, from her office, as ‘Liquidator’ of the Corporate Debtor’.
# 4. The second contention advanced on behalf of the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Bank’ is that, the ‘1st Respondent’/ ‘Former Liquidator’, is not entitled to get any `Remuneration’, whatsoever, till the sale of ‘Liquidation Assets’ of the `Corporate Debtor’ is ‘complete’, though, she is ‘eligible’ for the ‘Recurring Operative Expenditure’.
# 5. The ‘Erstwhile Liquidator’ / ‘1st Respondent’, appearing in person, points out, before this ‘Tribunal, that she is entitled to get `Remuneration’ of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m., (Rupees One Lakh Only), in respect of the functions, she had performed, as ‘Liquidator’ and added further,
Rs. 25,000/- p.m. (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), she is entitled to the support team of ‘Liquidator’, from 05/01/2022, till the handing over of the documents, to the ‘new Liquidator’, on `Pro-rata Basis’.
# 6. It is not in dispute that the ‘1st Respondent’ / ‘Erstwhile Liquidator’, had handed over the documents to the ‘2nd Respondent’ / ‘New Liquidator’, on 25/08/2022, and `Physical possession’ of the `Corporate Debtor’s Properties’, were also handed over to the ‘2nd Respondent’/ ‘New Liquidator’, on 14/09/2022.
# 7. In view of the averment, made by the ‘1st Respondent’ / ‘Erstwhile Liquidator’, as seen from the ‘Status Report’, filed to that effect, before this ‘Tribunal’, in the instant ‘Appeals’, and also, on going through the `Impugned Order’, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’ in IA No. 150/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 157/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 154/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 174/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 152/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 158/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 153/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 160/10/AMR/2019, IA No. 151/2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 159/10/AMR/2019 on 03/08/2022, this ‘Tribunal’, comes to a resultant conclusion that the `Remuneration’ of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. (Rupees One Lakh Only), claimed by the ‘Former Liquidator’, after discharging her duties as ‘Liquidator’ and Rs. 25,000/- p.m. (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) claimed by her, to the `Support Team of Liquidator’, from 05/01/2022, till the date of handing over of the documents on 25/06/2022, and physical possession of the Corporate Debtor’s properties to the ‘new Liquidator’, on 14/09/2022, is found by this ‘Tribunal’ to be a ‘reasonable’ and a ‘moderate Claim(s)’ and the `Stakeholders Consultation Committee’, is directed to earnestly, consider and approve the same, of course, within ‘four weeks’ from ‘Today’, from the date of passing of this ‘Order’, by taking a practical, purposeful, meaningful, pragmatic and a rational approach, with a view to secure the `ends of Justice’.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 342 of 2022, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 343/2022, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 344 of 2022, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 345 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 346 of 2022 stand ‘disposed of’. No costs.
---------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment