"We are in receipt 

of your email requesting to deposit the liquidation cost. 

The said request is being objected to here as:  

1. Firstly your (liquidator's) application seeking relief for payment of liquidation cost
and fees is pending adjudication. Thus demanding any fees when said application is
subjudice before the Hon'ble Tribunal is inappropriate. Further, in absence of any
approval for liquidator's fee by the COC or in the liquidation order, your charges of
Rs. 1.18 lacs as Liquidator fee  is legally not maintainable.  Also when it has also
been recorded in 1st stakeholders meeting held on 16th December 2019, that
liquidator may seek appropriate directions from the Adjudicating Authority in
regard to the liquidators fee upon disposal of assets, as the realization from sale of
assets forming liquidation estate would be less than the value of full CIRP cost and
Liquidation expense. 

2. We wish to inform you that Payment towards liquidation cost and fees are not
pending for adjudication. As per the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated
31.03.2021, specific directions were given to ICICI bank with respect to the
payment towards Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cost, Liquidation cost
and parking charges. Copy of the order is attached for your reference.

You should appreciate the fact that liquidator has not been paid since the
commencement of Liquidation in the captioned matter dated 07.08.2019

2. Secondly, as per the attached chart, your claim to liquidator’s fees over and above
the proportionate fee based on realization and distribution fee, is contrary to the
Liquidation Regulations. You may note that regulation 1 (ea) of the Liquidation
Process defines as to what would entail liquidation cost and thereunder it is stated
that the liquidator is entitled to the fees as mentioned in regulation 4. As per
Regulation 4 , the Liquidator is entitled to the fees equivalent to the amount
realized or distributed by the  Liquidator. Apparently, there is no other rule or
category under which Liquidator is entitled to both (fixed fees & fees as per
realization of assets).   Thus you claim anything beyond the regulation is not
maintainable. 

We would like to draw your attention to Regulation 4 (2) (a) of The Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016 which says that
“

(2) In cases other than those covered under sub-regulation (1), the liquidator shall
be entitled to a fee-
 at the same rate as the resolution professional was entitled to during the corporate
insolvency resolution process, for the period of compromise or arrangement under
section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013);

Therefore the claim sent to you by the liquidator is maintainable.

Further, we wish to inform you that the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated
22.10.2018 ordered and directed HDFC bank and ICICI bank to take further steps
for the sale of the car. The directions given by the Hon’ble Tribunal has not been
complied yet by HDFC ban and ICICI bank even after 31 months of passing the
order. Due to the same the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor has
deteoriated further.

3. We are unable to get any clarifications for what purpose "professionals" are
appointed? How many professionals are appointed? What are their per month fees?
Was such fees ever approved by the Stakeholders? Or please share the minutes,
where such appointment of professionals were even informed / shared with the
stakeholders.

It is a matter of fact and should be noted that under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016, the liquidator is not
required to take approval of stakeholders for appointment of professionals. The
liquidator is free to appoint professional to assit him carrying out the process.
Further, for your kind information, the liquidator has appointed two registered
valuers for assessing the value of the vehicles of the Corporate Debtor for a meagre
sum of Rs 5000 each plus applicable taxes. The same was already discussed in the
1st stakeholders meeting. The same was also shared with you in the excel sheet
provided by the undersigned.

4. Considering the lock-down in 2020 and ongoing lock-down due to COVID-19 ,

please share details of work carried out by the professionals charging fees in this
period.

The details of the all the expenses has been duly shared with you and ICICI bank in
the excel sheet which includes the appearance of advocate on behalf of the
liquidator. We are again attaching the same for your reference.

5. We would like to know how many advocates are being appointed? What are their
per month fees ? Is it as per effective date of hearing or on a monthly basis? Was
such fees ever brought to the notice of stakeholders or approved by the
Stakeholders? If yes, Please share the minutes, where such appointments of
advocates were even informed / shared with the stakeholders.

The liquidator is taking the services of Mr. Gaurav Gupta who is providing his
advocacy services to the liquidator. Further, he is providing his services as per
 appearance basis ( Rs 7,000 per appearance ) (5,000 for non-effective hearing). The
same was discussed in the last stakeholders meeting. The said fee is for effective as
well as non-effective hearing.

       Please note that due to aforesaid objections and also as your application in this regard is
pending adjudication before the AA, therefore we regret that we cannot pay the amount as
claimed by you. Further, we assume that you must have asked the other stakeholder ICICI
Bank also for the said liquidation cost. you are requested to kindly share with us their
response to the same.