Whether IRP can ask practicing Company secretary to do verification of claims under IBC on its behalf?

-

 Whether IRP can ask practicing Company secretary to do verification of claims under IBC on its behalf?

Shubham Budhiraja[1]



Mr. A appointed as IRP by NCLT, Delhi in matter of CIRP of XYZ Limited. Mr. A appointed Mr. B (Practicing Company Secretary) for purpose of helping Mr. A in verification of claims of creditors (as required to be done as duty of IRP). Mr. A contend that since XYZ limited is a big concern and its claim documents are in huge volumes and verification process is time bound under IBC and therefore he asked Mr. B to assist him in verification and the fee payment of Mr. B was also approved by COC in its 1st meeting. The IBBI held that delegation of its duty of verification of claims by IRP is in breach of section 18(1)(b) of the Code, regulation 13 (1) of the CIRP Regulations and IBBI Circular no. IP/003/2018 dated 3rd January, 2018 and hence IRP is guilty and penalized with the amount equal to fees paid to Mr. B[2]

(I)                 An IRP / RP is appointed by the AA and is duty bound to conduct CIRP with fairness and diligence and must maintain absolute independence in discharge of his statutory duties without any external influences.

 

(II)               The entire resolution process of a CD is dependent on the IRP/ RP who is primarily responsible for efficiently and effectively steer it towards resolution. It is due to this reason that the role of the IRP/ RP becomes paramount during CIRP.

 

 

(III)             Further, it is the duty of the IP to follow the guidelines and Code of Conduct laid down under the Code and the Regulations made thereunder so as to legitimately meet the interests of all stakeholders. As per the section 18(1)(b) of the Code, it is the duty of the IP to receive and collate all the claims

 

(IV)             An IP is also obligated under section 208(2)(a) and (e) of the Code to take reasonable care and diligence while performing his duties. The regulation 13(1) of the CIRP Regulations provides for verification of claims

 

(V)               The IBBI Circular no. IP/003/2018 dated 3rd January, 2018 relating to “Insolvency professional not to outsource his responsibilities” clarifies that: “3. It is hereby directed that an insolvency resolution professional shall not outsource any of his duties and responsibilities under the Code.”


[1] Advocate Delhi High Court, Associate Company Secretary-ICSI, Member-Research Committee, North Region-ICSI, Member-Delhi High Court Bar Association, Secretary-NGO Shaurya Ek Samman (Regd.), Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315

[2] No. IBBI/DC/80/2021

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more