Case Title: Kushwinder Singhal v. Reena Tiwari
The Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, principal bench, adjudicating in this case held that the committee of creditors has the jurisdiction to amend approval of the fees of the Resolution Professional.
In this case, an appeal had been filed against the order dated February 24, 2022, under Section 27(3) of the IBC, 2016 pertaining to the appointment of Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta in place of Mr. Kushvinder Singhal. Furthermore, the same replacement was approved by the committee of creditors on May 17, 2021. In addition to that, it was also resolved that the Resolution Professional is eligible for the professional fees until a new Resolution Professional is appointed. The application was filed pursuant to the resolution of the COC, which was decided on February 24, 2022.
The counsel asserted on behalf of the appellant that there was no direction given to the reconstituted COC to consider the CIRP fees after the approval of the same in the previous COC meeting on May 17, 2021.
The NCLAT observed that there was no error in the direction taken by the NCLT in consideration of the CIRP costs, as it was subsequent to the resolution dated May 17, 2021. Further, the appellate tribunal opined that the COC is entrusted to examine the factual aspects and has the aforementioned authority to consider the CIRP's cost and pass an appropriate order.
The NCLAT added that the CoC has complete authority to revise the fee decided by the earlier CoC division. The NCLAT further considered that the proviso in Regulation 12(3) cannot curtail the power of the CoC to consider the fees and expenses, especially since the expenses claimed are also from a subsequent period.
The NCLAT further concluded and held that, “We thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority directing the reconstituted CoC to consider the CIRP cost. We do not find any merit in the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.”