# In the matter of India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rohit J. Vora & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-08-09. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00294. These are two appeals filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Aug 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00294
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/india-resurgence-arc-pvt-ltd-ors-vs-rohit-j-vora-ors-1b3c3794

## Summary

### Background

These are two appeals filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, arising from a common order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Court-III) in IA No.1312/2022 of CP(IB) No. 4065/MB/2018. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to pay the Resolution Professional (RP) Rs.1 lakh per month + GST from 01.09.2019 to 24.04.2022, along with actual expenses upon production of bills. The appeals challenge this order.

## Facts

A Section 7 application was admitted against the Corporate Debtor on 25.04.2019 for initiating CIRP. Religare Finvest became a member of the CoC with 69.02% voting share. The Interim Resolution Professional was appointed and later became the RP with a monthly remuneration of Rs.3.75 lakhs plus GST. The 3rd CoC meeting on 18.07.2019 decided to remove the RP, but he continued to function. The 4th CoC meeting on 26.08.2019 raised the issue of non-payment of fees. The CoC decided to go for liquidation. The 5th CoC meeting on 17.10.2019 decided not to extend the time-limit for CIRP. The RP filed MA No. 3399/2019 on 16.10.2019 for payment of fees, which was allowed on 10.11.2022. The RP also filed MA No. 3668/2019 on 11.11.2019 seeking liquidation, which was allowed on

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the RP's fee and expenses are payable till 24.04.2022, and if so, whether the reduction of …

**Ratio:** The fees of the RP are required to be ratified by the CoC. Once the CoC decided to

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the CoC had ratified the appointment of the Interim Resolution

…

**Interpretation:** The Adjudicating Authority has the power to scale down the fees if it is a

…

**Application:** The court found that the active CIRP period had expired with no substantial

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** India Resurgence…
- **Respondents:** Jogma Laminates…; Rohit J.…

## Timeline

- **2019-04-25 — Section 7 App…**: Section 7 application admitted against the…
- **2019-07-18 — 3rd CoC M…**: The 3rd CoC meeting decided to remove the RP, subject to his continuance until…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/india-resurgence-arc-pvt-ltd-ors-vs-rohit-j-vora-ors-1b3c3794