# In the matter of Gulshan Gaba Vs. Surinder Juneja & Anr CA(AT)(Ins)No. 929 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-10-29. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00066. The case involves an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Oct 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00066
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gulshan-gaba-vs-surinder-juneja-anr-ca-b32729a7

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the remuneration to be paid to the Applicant/erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Adjudicating Authority had fixed and directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to pay Rs. 3,50,000 per month to the IRP, excluding earlier payments. The appellant contends that this order contradicts a previous order from 07.01.2019, where the Adjudicating Authority directed the CoC to hold another meeting to resolve the issue and decide the amount to be paid to the present IRP.

## Facts

The Adjudicating Authority initially directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to convene a meeting to determine the appropriate remuneration for the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on 07.01.2019. Subsequently, on 21.09.2020, the Adjudicating Authority issued an order fixing the IRP's remuneration at Rs. 3,50,000 per month. The appellant, Gulshan Gaba, challenged the latter order, arguing that it contradicted the earlier directive for the CoC to resolve the issue through a meeting. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority's decision to unilaterally fix the remuneration was inconsistent with its previous instruction for the CoC to deliberate and decide on the appropriate amount. The court noted the contradiction between the two orders, leading to

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Impugned Order dated 21.09.2020, fixing the remuneration of the IRP, is inconsistent …

**Ratio:** Judicial orders should be consistent and not contradictory. When an earlier order directs

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Impugned Order contradicted the earlier order. The earlier

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority's powers are subject to

…

**Application:** The court applied the principle of consistency to the facts of the case.

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Jarat Kuma…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Gulshan…
- **Respondents:** Surinder…
- **Advocates:** Dhruv Dev…; Rakesh…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2019-01-07 — Earlier Order by…**: The Adjudicating Authority directed the CoC to have another meeting to resolve the issue…
- **2020-09-21 — Impugned Order by…**: The Adjudicating Authority fixed and directed CoC to pay remuneration to the…

---

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/gulshan-gaba-vs-surinder-juneja-anr-ca-b32729a7