Summary
The Supreme Court held that the NCLT could determine a registered valuer’s professional charges for work performed during a corporate insolvency resolution process, even though that process was later set aside. The claim arose intrinsically from the CIRP and the tribunal had not become functus officio. IBBI’s disciplinary mechanism for complaints against resolution professionals did not replace adjudication of professional fees. The matter was remitted for factual determination of the work and amount payable.
Issues
- Whether the NCLT retained jurisdiction over a valuer’s CIRP-related fee claim after the insolvency proceedings were set aside.
- Whether the availability of an IBBI complaint mechanism displaced that jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5(13) and 60(5)(c), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Professional charges arising intrinsically from the CIRP could be determined as process costs under the tribunal’s insolvency jurisdiction. (¶¶ 12, 18-20)
- Regulations 31, 33 and 34, IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016The costs framework includes fees of professionals appointed by the resolution professional; the valuer’s claimed work and remuneration required assessment. (¶ 13-19)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court directed adjudication by the NCLT in the circumstances of the terminated CIRP. (¶ 19)
Held
- The valuer was appointed incidentally to the CIRP and claimed charges for work during its subsistence. Setting aside the CIRP did not render the NCLT functus officio as to that intrinsic costs claim. (¶ 18-19)
- The Court did not determine whether all claimed work was performed or fix the amount due; those factual matters belonged to the NCLT. The withdrawal-specific mechanism in Regulation 30A did not directly apply. (¶ 18-19)
- IBBI’s grievance and disciplinary process addresses professional misconduct. Its availability did not divest the NCLT of jurisdiction to decide amounts payable to other professionals as CIRP costs. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; NCLAT order set aside and valuer’s application restored to the NCLT for fresh determination of professional charges.