# In the matter of Deepankur Sharma,
Erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional of Arpan
International Ltd. Vs. 
Pradeep Cycle Industries through its Proprietor
Pradeep Kumar Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 474 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-05-04. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00509. This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 474 of 2022 before the National Company Law…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 May 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00509
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/deepankur-sharma-erstwhile-interim-resolution-professional-of-arpan-internationa-72cfb0fa

## Summary

### Background

This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 474 of 2022 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The appeal was filed against an order dated 16th March, 2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed an application to withdraw a petition filed by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority also directed payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to Rs. 75,000/- already paid to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP, being aggrieved by the order, filed the appeal.

## Facts

The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Deepankur Sharma, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) application filed by an Operational Creditor. The CIRP application was admitted on December 22, 2021. The withdrawal application was filed on January 3, 2022. The Adjudicating Authority directed the payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to Rs. 75,000/- already paid to the IRP. The IRP claimed that the cost paid was not commensurate with the work done and that no settlement was possible. The NCLAT noted that the IRP had effectively functioned for only 14 days due to a status quo order. The IRP raised the issue of fees, arguing that the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order directing payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to Rs. …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority has the power to fix the fee of the Interim Resolution

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered that the IRP had only functioned for 14 days due to the status quo

…

**Interpretation:** This clarifies the scope of the Adjudicating Authority's power to determine IRP

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the principle that the Adjudicating Authority can fix IRP

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Deepankur…
- **Respondents:** Arpan Internationa…; Pradeep Cycle…

## Timeline

- **2021-12-22 — Admission of Ap…**: The application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was…
- **2022-01-03 — Application for…**: The application to withdraw the CIRP was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12A — (1) Subject to sub](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-12a)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/deepankur-sharma-erstwhile-interim-resolution-professional-of-arpan-internationa-72cfb0fa