Mohd Nazim Khan Vs HDFC Bank Limited (NCLAT Delhi)
The appeal arose from the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, in IA No. 343/2021, whereby the Adjudicating Authority directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to pay the appellant, the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), ₹3,00,000 as remuneration and ₹91,308 towards verified expenses as CIRP costs, while declining his claim for ₹29,23,308.
The appellant contended that he served as IRP from 08.08.2019 until his replacement on 20.11.2020 and continued to discharge the functions of the Resolution Professional under Sections 16(5) and 22(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He submitted that the CoC had approved remuneration of ₹1,50,000 without treating it as a lump-sum amount, that the successor Resolution Professional was paid monthly remuneration, and that the CoC retrospectively reinterpreted the remuneration as a consolidated payment only after notice was issued in his application seeking payment of dues. He further argued that remuneration of an IRP/RP constitutes CIRP cost under Section 5(13) read with Regulations 33 and 34 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, and relied upon Regulation 34B and Schedule II, introduced by notification dated 13.09.2022, to contend that remuneration is inherently monthly in nature. He sought parity with the monthly remuneration approved for the successor Resolution Professional.
