Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Mahesh Chandra Purohit challenging the order dated 20.03.2026 passed in I.A. No. 194 of 2023, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. The applicant, who was the erstwhile Resolution Professional, sought payment for certain fees and expenses but had only impleaded himself in the application. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the Resolution Professional requested time to implead the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and Suspended Management, and subsequently allowed an application to recall a prior order. However, the effect of this order was that neither the CoC nor the Suspended Management was part of the proceedings in the application for fees. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application since the necessary parties were not included. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant could file a fresh application before the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Application for Fees - Rejection of Application - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for payment of fees by the Resolution Professional on the grounds that neither the Committee of Creditors (CoC) nor the Suspended Management was impleaded in the application. The Tribunal upheld the decision, allowing the applicant to file a fresh application if desired. Held that the rejection was justified as per the procedural requirements (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the application for payment of fees by the Resolution Professional.
Final Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the application for payment of fees due to the absence of necessary parties.
Law Points
- CIRP
- Resolution Professional
- CoC
- Suspended Management
- Adjudicating Authority's discretion
