Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to unilaterally fix or reduce Resolution Professional fees approved by Committee of Creditors.

The Appellant, the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) of Crystal Clear Veg Oil Refinery Pvt. Ltd., appealed an order of the NCLT Mumbai which reduced her professional fee from ₹50,000 to ₹10,000 per month for the period of April 2023 to January 2024.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced on 16.04.2018, but due to lack of a viable resolution plan, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) voted for withdrawal under Section 12A on 04.04.2019.

Legal delays followed regarding the Section 12A application, which was finally allowed on 23.01.2024.

While the CoC had originally fixed the RP’s fee at ₹2,00,000 per month, the NCLT had previously reduced it to ₹50,000 in an earlier order dated 11.08.2023.

In a subsequent application for the final period of service, the NCLT further slashed the fee to ₹10,000, prompting this appeal.

Whether the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has the jurisdiction to fix or reduce the fees of a Resolution Professional without a recommendation from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Whether a Resolution Professional is entitled to professional fees for the period between filing a Section 12A withdrawal application and its final approval/handover.

The court applied Section 12A of the IBC regarding the withdrawal of applications.

It strictly interpreted Regulation 30A(7) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, which stipulates that the applicant must deposit actual expenses incurred until the date of *approval* of withdrawal by the Adjudicating Authority.

The court further relied on Regulations 33 and 34 of the CIRP Regulations, which vest the power to fix the RP’s fee and expenses exclusively with the CoC based on its commercial wisdom.

Regulation 34B and Schedule II provide the framework for minimum fixed fees, noting that the Adjudicating Authority’s power to fix fees is limited only to instances where the applicant fails to propose an IRP fee at the initiation stage under Regulation 33(2).

The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that the NCLT erred by holding that fees are only payable up to the date of *filing* the 12A application; Regulation 30A(7) explicitly extends this liability to the date of *approval*.

The Tribunal emphasized that an RP cannot "walk away" after filing a 12A application and remains duty-bound to manage the Corporate Debtor’s affairs until a formal handover.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the IBC does not empower the Adjudicating Authority to arbitrarily reduce fees fixed by the CoC’s commercial wisdom.

While the previous reduction to ₹50,000 had attained finality as it wasn't challenged, the further reduction to ₹10,000 was legally unsustainable as it lacked statutory backing and CoC recommendation.

The Tribunal affirmed that the RP is entitled to payment for the entire duration of service until handover.

The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law, with parties directed to appear on 23.03.2026.