Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

We provide services to Financials Creditors, Operational Creditors

Resolution Professional (RP)

We provide all services as required and specified under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to preserve and protect the assets

Representation on Committee of Creditors

We provide services as mentioned under the under section 21 (6A) (b) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016


We provide all services as required and specified under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Insolvency Resolution Advice

We provide professional and impartial advice to Corporate Debtors and Creditors, Partners/Directors

IBC Update: Fee of IRP/RP
    • Minimum fixed fee prescribed for IRP/RP appointed on or after October 01, 2022.
    • Minimum fixed fee shall be applicable for the period, from appointment as IRP/RP, till the time of –
      • submission of application for approval of resolution plan under section 30;
      • submission of application to liquidate the corporate debtor under section 33;
      • submission of application for withdrawal under section 12A; or
      • order for closure of corporate insolvency resolution process.
whichever is earlier.
      • After the period as mentioned above, the fee to IRP/RP shall be decided by the applicant (who has initiated CIRP) or committee, as the case may be.
      • Provisions made for Performance-linked incentive fee for timely resolution and for value maximisation to be paid to RP.
      • The fee may be paid from the funds, available with the corporate debtor, contributed by the applicant or members of the committee and/or raised by way of interim finance and shall be included in the Insolvency Resolution Process Cost.
Notification dated Sep 13, 2022: Amendment in IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016
IBC Update: Fees /charges from any professional and/or support service provider
  • An Insolvency Professional shall not accept /share any fees or charges from any professional and/or support service provider who are appointed under the processes.
Notification dated Sep 13, 2022: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022
Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India: IBC prevails over Customs Act
  • The appeal is filed against the order of Hon’ble NCLAT that has allowed the appeal filed by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs against the order of the Hon’ble NCLT whereby the Hon’ble NCLT directed the release of certain goods lying in the Customs Bonded Warehouses without payment of custom duty.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
    • Section 142A of the Customs Act specifically provides that Custom Authorities would have first charge on the assets of an assessee under the Customs Act, except with respect to cases under Section 529A of Companies Act 1956, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the IBC, 2016. Accordingly, such an exception created under the Customs Act is duly acknowledged under Section 238 of the IBC as well.
    • o The Custom department could only initiate assessment or re-assessment of the duties and other levies. They cannot transgress such boundary and proceed to initiate recovery in violation of section 14 or 33(5) of the IBC.
    • o The demand notice issued by the Custom authority under Section 72 of the Customs Act, was in clear breach of the moratorium imposed under Section 33(5) of the IBC and falls squarely within the ambit of initiating legal proceedings against a Corporate Debtor.
    • o Even under the liquidation process, the liquidator is given the responsibility to secure assets and goods of the Corporate Debtor under Section 35(1)(b) of IBC.
    • o Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the Custom authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The Custom authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.
    • o After such assessment, the Custom authority can only submit the claim before the RP/Liquidator.
    • o The IRP/RP/liquidator was allowed to secure goods from the Custom authority to be dealt
    • o with appropriately, in terms of the IBC.
    • · Order dated 26th August, 2022 in the matter of Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Order of Hon’ble NCLAT: Purpose of IBC is ‘Resolution’ and not ‘Recovery’
  • Appeal against the order passed by Hon’ble NCLT rejecting the application filed under section 9 of IBC, 2016.
  • The Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of Hon’ble NCLT on the following ground:
    • the Corporate Debtor is an’ MSME’ and a ‘going concern’ and a ‘viable entity’;
    • the Appellant/Applicant has not produced on record any bank statements to show that payments were received from the Corporate Debtor against the invoices based on which the claims have been raised and thus is an incomplete Application.
    • the Operational Creditor had filed the Petition as a tool of recovery and that the Code is not intended to be a substitute to a Recovery Forum;
    • If IBC is purely used for the purpose of Debt Recovery, particularly when the amounts due are small, and the Company is a solvent entity and is a going concern, the question of ‘Reorganising’ or ‘Resolution of the Company’ does not arise.
  • In the matter of M/s Agarwal Veneers v/s Fundtonic Service Pvt. Ltd.
Order of Hon’ble NCLAT: Personal guarantor cannot escape his liability on becoming citizen of a foreign country:
  • The Appellant (Personal Guarantor) was a director of the Corporate Debtor;
  • The personal guarantor entered into a deed of guarantee in the year 2015 and later in the year 2018 received citizenship of Singapore;
  • The Hon’ble NCLT passed an order admitting the application filed by SBI u/s 95(1) of IBC against the Appellant on 03.08.2021.
  • The Appellant filed the appeal challenging the order passed by Hon’ble NCLT on the ground that the IBC is not applicable on him as the act applies to personal guarantor being Indian citizens only.
  • The Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that:
  • Although the personal guarantor (appellant) of the corporate debtor has acquired foreign citizenship, it does not deprive the Adjudicating Authority to invoke the liability of such person.
  • The deed of guarantee shall be binding on the appellant even if later on he receives the foreign citizenship
  • The residence of Personal Guarantor is not taken into consideration when proceedings against the Personal Guarantor are initiated.
  • The Personal Guarantor, who is whether residing in India or residing outside India, when an application is filed against the Personal Guarantor the jurisdiction shall be before the Adjudicating Authority in whose territorial jurisdiction the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is located.
  • Order dated 29.07.2022 in the matter of Sudip Dutta vs. State Bank of India.
he Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that there are noticeable differences in the IBC between the procedure of initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor and initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor. In case of an application for commencement of CIRP filed by Operational Creditor, the Adjudicating Authority would have to examine: i. whether there was an operational debt exceeding the prescribed amount; ii. whether the evidence furnished with the application showed that debt exceeding the prescribed amount was due and payable and had not till then been paid; and iii. whether there was existence of any dispute between the parties or the record of pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of demand notice in relation to such dispute. If any one of the aforesaid conditions was not fulfilled, the application of the Operational Creditor would have to be rejected. The NCLT, exercising powers under Section 7 or Section 9 of IBC, is not a debt collection forum. The IBC tackles and/or deals with insolvency and bankruptcy. It is not the object of the IBC that CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor. In the present case, the appeal filed by the Operational Creditor before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed as there was a pre-existing dispute with regard to the alleged claim of the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. (Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated July 15, 2022 in the matter of M/S S.S. Engineers Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ORS. (Previous order: NCLAT dated January 10, 2022 and NCLT dated February 12, 2020)
The Hon’ble NCLT declared the action of CoC as null and void and directed the Resolution Professional to give afresh opportunity to Resolution Applicant to participate in the process of submission of resolution plan where COC has approved a resolution plan which had a lower value and declined to consider the revised resolution plan submitted by another Resolution Applicant being submitted 3 days after the deadline. The Hon’ble NCLT further held that every inappropriate act or omission by CoC cannot be accepted in the garb of supremacy and non-justiciability of commercial wisdom of CoC. (Order dated 13.06.22 in the matter of M/S Giriraj Costed Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anshul Gupta (RP of Rathi Graphic Technologies Ltd.) and Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India). MCA clarifies that individuals with duplicate/multiple DINs can retain only oldest DIN and DIN once associated is not eligible for surrender. NCLT New Delhi bench to start e-filing w.e.f.27 August 2018 Government looking at adopting an UN model for cross border insolvency norms Clarificatory amendment: Moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to personal guarantees. Second round of bidding for Jaypee Infratech however Jaypee Associates and Jaypee Infratech barred from participating in the resolution proceedings u/s 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Set up of eight special courts under the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to deal with insolvency cases -3 courts in Mumbai, 2 in Delhi, and one each in Chennai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad. E-courts to manage cross-border insolvency proceedings.


Call our Confidential Advice Line.
Calls to this number are free of charge.

Call Us Now…

Request a Meeting

We invite you to come and discuss your enquiry
with us at your convenience.

Reqest a meeting…