The IRP is not entitled to fees during stay of CIRP proceedings; closure of CIRP does not require filing Form FA.

ORDER

1. This interlocutory application has been filed by Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari, the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"/"Applicant") of M/s Mindlogicx Infratech Private Limited ("Corporate Debtor") under Regulation 30-A, 34 and 34-B of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for the following reliefs:

(a) To direct the Respondents to make complete payment of Rs. 10,67,923/-, consisting of the professional fees of IRP of Rs. 9,74,950/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) and Rs. 92,973/- (Rupees Ninety-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Three only) towards further legal expenses to the Applicant, being the fees and expenses due and payable for services rendered as Interim Resolution Professional in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor;

(b) To direct the Respondents to adhere to the Code and Regulation 30A of Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016, including submission of Form FA for proper withdrawal of this company petition after payment of CIRP cost;

(c) To pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts germane to the application are as follows:

a) The Corporate Debtor, M/s Mindlogicx Infratech Private Limited, was incorporated on 28.07.201. The Respondent No.1, Union Bank of India, being the Financial Creditor, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") proceedings by filing an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC").

b) The Hon'ble Tribunal, vide its order dated 09.06.2023, admitted the petition and initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, appointing Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari as the IRP.

c) Subsequently, the directors of the Corporate Debtor, being aggrieved by the initiation of CIRP, approached the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (" NCLAT ") by filing Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 168/2023.

d) The Hon'ble NCLAT , by its order dated 16.06.2023, stayed the operation of the order dated 09.06.2023, stating: "Till the next date of 'Hearing', the implementation of the 'Impugned Order' dated 09.06.2023 in CP (IB) No. 126/BB/2022 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench shall stand deferred."

e) During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT , the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor entered into negotiations for settlement of the matter.

f) The parties arrived at a One-Time Settlement ("OTS") arrangement, and the Financial Creditor issued a loan closure letter acknowledging clearance of all dues by the Corporate Debtor on 31.08.2024.

g) In view of the settlement and clearance of dues, the Hon'ble NCLAT , by its order dated 03.10.2024, disposed of the appeal and closed the CIRP proceedings initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

h) Post-settlement, the Corporate Debtor made representations seeking filing of Form INC-28 before the Registrar of Companies to record the cessation of the IRP's role and to remove the CIRP status from the MCA master data.

i) Due to non-filing of Form INC-28, the Corporate Debtor approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing W.P. No. 33623/2024 and W.P. No. 33599/2024. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, by orders dated 10.07.2025, allowed both writ petitions with directions to the IRP to file Form INC-28 in accordance with law.

j) In these circumstances, the present interlocutory application has been filed by the IRP seeking directions for payment of professional fees and expenses, and for compliance with the procedural requirements under the IBC for withdrawal of the company petition.

3. Ap