National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Upholds Appellant's Challenge to Fee Reduction in Insolvency Proceedings — Fees for Stay Period Limited.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by CMA Harshad Deshpande, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of M/s Shri Tradco Deesan Private Limited, challenging an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the payment of his professional fees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP commenced on 15.02.2023 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with the Appellant appointed as IRP. The Appellant's fees were contested by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which ratified only partial fees for the period when the constitution of the CoC was stayed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant argued that he was entitled to the full agreed fee of INR 2,50,000 per month, as he had performed significant duties despite the stay. The Respondents contended that the Appellant's role was limited during the stay, justifying the reduced fees. The Tribunal analyzed the interim order and the nature of work performed by the Appellant, ultimately determining that the limited work did not warrant full fees. The appeal was confined to the issue of fees for the stay period, and the Tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision to limit the fees to INR 50,000 per month for that duration.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Fees of Interim Resolution Professional - Entitlement to Fees - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The Appellant contended that he was entitled to full fees despite the stay on the constitution of the CoC, arguing that he performed substantial work during the stay period. The Tribunal held that the limited work performed did not entitle the Appellant to full fees at the same rate as during a fully operational CIRP (Paras 39-44).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant is entitled to full fees during the period when the constitution of the Committee of Creditors was stayed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's order, limiting the Appellant's fees to INR 50,000 per month for the stay period from 28.02.2023 to 01.09.2023, finding that the limited work performed did not warrant full fees.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Interim Resolution Professional fees
  • Committee of Creditors
  • CIRP Regulations
  • professional fees ratification
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 51

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 108 of 2026

2025-10-07

Indevar Pandey

Mr. Sunny V. Gangar, Mr. G. Aniruth Purusothaman, Mr. Ricky Sampat

CMA Harshad Deshpande

Shri Rakesh Kumar Relan, Committee of Creditors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the NCLT's order regarding professional fees of the Interim Resolution Professional.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought full payment of professional fees during the stay period.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the ratification and payment of professional fees.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT partly allowed the application for fees, limiting them to INR 50,000 per month during the stay period.

Issues

Entitlement to full fees during the stay period Validity of fee reduction by the Committee of Creditors

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that he performed substantial work and was entitled to full fees. The Respondents contended that the Appellant's role was limited due to the stay, justifying reduced fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that fees of an Interim Resolution Professional are contingent upon the actual discharge of functions under the Code, and limited work performed during a stay period does not entitle the Appellant to full fees.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Appeal is confined only to the issue of fees payable to the Appellant during the period when the constitution of the CoC stood stayed. The only question here is whether the limited work performed during a restricted CIRP period would entitle the Appellant to claim full fees. The Appellant has argued that the CIRP itself was never stayed by this Appellate Tribunal.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dated 07.10.2025, which partly allowed the application for professional fees, leading to the current challenge regarding the fee structure during the stay period.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016: Regulation 34B, Schedule II
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition on Pension Rights of Temporary Employees Absorbed in Statutory Body. The court ruled that temporary employees absorbed in the ONGC were not entitled to pension in addition to Provident Fund benefits, as pension w...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonour Case — Compensation of Rs.25,75,765 Upheld. Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands unless accused rebuts with probable defence.