# In the matter of Sumit Bansal, Insolvency Professional Vs. Committee of Creditors of JP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 160 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-02-18. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00619. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Feb 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00619
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sumit-bansal-insolvency-professional-vs-committee-of-creditors-of-jp-engineers-p-647794ba

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, regarding an application filed by the Appellant, who was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The dispute centers around the IRP's fee, which he claimed should be Rs. 2 Lakhs per month. The CoC ratified a payment of Rs. 50,000 per month. The Adjudicating Authority referred the matter to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to examine the claim of the Ex-IRP. The appellant challenged the order submitting that IBBI has no jurisdiction to decide the question of payment of fees.

## Facts

Sumit Bansal, an Insolvency Professional, was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for JP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority appointed him on 2020-02-26. In the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), Bansal claimed a monthly fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The CoC, however, only ratified a payment of Rs. 50,000 per month. Bansal worked until 2021-01-27, when he was replaced by another Resolution Professional. Subsequently, Bansal filed an application (I.A 5274 of 2021) before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking the payment of his claimed fees of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month. The Adjudicating Authority then referred the matter to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for examination and recommendations. Bansal appealed against this

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the IBBI has jurisdiction to regulate the payment of remuneration to Resolution …

**Ratio:** The IBBI is clothed with Regulations making power under Section 240 of the Code. Section

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the general power of framing regulations to carry out the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 240 of the Code and the existing IBBI regulations

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the present case, concluding that the IBBI

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; V. P. S…
- **Appellants:** Sumit B…
- **Respondents:** J.P. Engineers…; Committee of…

## Timeline

- **2020-02-26 — Appointment…**: Sumit Bansal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the…
- **N/A — First CoC M…**: In the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the IRP claimed a monthly fee…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 240 — Power to make regulations](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-240)

---

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/sumit-bansal-insolvency-professional-vs-committee-of-creditors-of-jp-engineers-p-647794ba