Menu
Ravi Sitaraman
I was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) by the NCLT bench under Section 95 of the IBC, in relation to a foreign Operational Creditor (OC) supplying machinery. The Section 99 report, recommending the admission of the Personal Guarantor (PG) to Corporate Debtor (CD), has been submitted, but the decision of the Adjudicating Authority (AA) is still pending. The OC is represented by its counsel, a well-known law firm.
Since my appointment under Section 97, the Creditor has been reluctant to pay the RP’s fees, and communication from their side has been sporadic, despite my repeated calls and emails. After much effort, I managed to appoint legal representation for myself as RP, and the Creditor eventually paid the advocate’s fees, but only after persistent follow-ups. During the last hearing, my counsel informed the bench that the RP’s fee had not yet been paid. The NCLT then directed the OC to pay the RP’s fees within 7 days, warning of dismissal of the application and other adverse consequences should they fail to comply.
On the same day, the OC’s counsel sent an email raising 22 frivolous queries, seemingly as an attempt to delay payment. They cited Regulation 3(i), which addresses the inclusion of the RP’s fees as part of the Insolvency Resolution Process Costs (IRPC), but made no reference to the quantum of fees. Their argument is that the RP is only entitled to fees post-admission under Section 100 of the IBC, implying that no fees are payable to the RP prior to admission.
Additionally, they misrepresented the advocate’s fee payment as part of the RP’s fee, and referred to the Rs. 25,000 mentioned in the NCLT order for report submission as the total fee paid to the RP.
I have chosen not to respond to their emails and will instead raise the matter before the bench at the next hearing, pointing out that the RP’s fees have not been paid, despite the court’s clear directions. I will request the bench, through my counsel, to take further action on this non-compliance.
The case now hinges on the AA’s decision. If the Section 99 report is rejected or the Section 95 application is dismissed due to non-compliance with the court’s orders, the matter may be closed. However, the unresolved question remains: what happens to the RP’s fees from the date of appointment until now? The outcome of this case will be telling.
By submitting the membership form, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to abide by these terms and conditions.