The case originated from an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority had previously appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, declared a moratorium, and frozen accounts. However, the NCLAT overturned these orders, deeming them illegal. The NCLAT order, dated 24.01.2019, in 'Kavita Anil Taneja v. ISMT Limited', directed the Adjudicating Authority to close the proceedings and release the Respondent Company from legal restrictions. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to determine the fees for the Interim Resolution Professional, to be paid by the Corporate Debtor. The outstanding expenses of Rs. 3,10,500/- were to be paid by the Corporate Debtor as per the direction of the Hon'ble NCLAT.

The case originated from an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority had previously appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, declared a moratorium, and frozen accounts. However, the NCLAT overturned these orders, deeming them illegal. The NCLAT order, dated 24.01.2019, in 'Kavita Anil Taneja v. ISMT Limited', directed the Adjudicating Authority to close the proceedings and release the Respondent Company from legal restrictions. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to determine the fees for the Interim Resolution Professional, to be paid by the Corporate Debtor. The outstanding expenses of Rs. 3,10,500/- were to be paid by the Corporate Debtor as per the direction of the Hon'ble NCLAT.