ALOK KAUSHIK versus MRS BHUVANESHWARI RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS

ALOK KAUSHIK versus MRS BHUVANESHWARI RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS

Where a registered valuer was appointed in pursuance of the initiation of the CIRP and claims fees and expenses forming part of CIRP costs, the NCLT is empowered under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to determine the amount payable to that valuer even if the CIRP is subsequently set aside; the NCLT was incorrect to hold it was functus officio and the matter is to be remitted to the NCLT for fresh determination.

Parties
Appellant: ALOK KAUSHIK; Respondents: MRS BHUVANESHWARI RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment Delivered and Remitted to NCLT
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned NCLAT order set aside; matter remitted to the NCLT for fresh determination; NCLT order of 18 December 2019 set aside; CA No.192 of 2020 restored to the file of the NCLT.
Legal Topics
CIRP Costs, Registered Valuer Fees, Jurisdiction of NCLT Under Section 60(5)(c), IRP Regulations, Grievance Redressal Against Insolvency Professionals
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Constitutional Law Company Law Regulatory Law CIRP Costs Registered Valuer Fees Jurisdiction of NCLT Under Section 60(5)(c) IRP Regulations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALOK KAUSHIK

Appellant

MRS BHUVANESHWARI RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment Delivered and Remitted to NCLT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NCLT has jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to determine the fees payable to a registered valuer appointed during the CIRP even where the CIRP is subsequently set aside
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a grievance redressal mechanism under the IBBI ousts the NCLT's jurisdiction to determine claims forming part of CIRP costs
  3. 3 Whether the IRP Regulations (Regulation 31, 33, 34) include fees of other professionals as insolvency resolution process costs

Ratio Decidendi

Where a registered valuer was appointed in pursuance of the initiation of the CIRP and claims fees and expenses forming part of CIRP costs, the NCLT is empowered under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to determine the amount payable to that valuer even if the CIRP is subsequently set aside; the NCLT was incorrect to hold it was functus officio and the matter is to be remitted to the NCLT for fresh determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned NCLAT order set aside; matter remitted to the NCLT for fresh determination; NCLT order of 18 December 2019 set aside; CA No.192 of 2020 restored to the file of the NCLT.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the NCLAT dated 13 October 2020 set aside
  • Proceedings remitted to the NCLT for determining the appellant's claim for payment of professional charges as a registered valuer appointed by the RP