Case Law Details
Ashok Kumar Gulla Vs State Bank of India (NCLAT Delhi)
The case of Ashok Kumar Gulla vs State Bank of India before NCLAT Delhi delves into the intricate matter of liquidator fees as stipulated under Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Liquidation Process Regulations. The appellant, acting as the liquidator of M/s SRS Limited, contested the impugned order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh, seeking various reliefs, primarily regarding his remuneration during the liquidation process.
The crux of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of Regulation 4(2)(b) concerning the entitlement of the liquidator to fees. The appellant argued for a specific remuneration amount, citing the attachment of corporate debtor assets by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), hindering the liquidation process and thus his ability to realize fees. Conversely, the respondents, including the National Company Law Tribunal and other stakeholders, contended that the liquidator’s compensation should adhere strictly to the provisions outlined in Regulation 4(2)(b), linked to the proceeds from asset realization.
The legal discourse presented various nuances, including the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) in determining the liquidator’s fees. Reference was made to pertinent regulations, notably Regulation 39D and Regulation 31A, to discern the procedural and substantive aspects governing fee fixation. Additionally, the matter delved into precedents, emphasizing the adherence to statutory provisions without judicial innovation, as underscored in the J.P. Bansal case.
Upon meticulous review of arguments and regulatory provisions, NCLAT Delhi rendered its decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant. The tribunal upheld the stance that remuneration for the liquidator must align with Regulation 4(2)(b), emphasizing the role of the SCC in fee determination. Despite acknowledging the challenges posed by asset attachment, the tribunal underscored the absence of grounds to deviate from the prescribed framework. The ruling signifies the primacy of statutory regulations in adjudicating matters of liquidation and underscores the need for stakeholders to adhere to established procedures in fee determination.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
