### Exclusion of time for medical reasons cannot shift liquidator’s fee calculation to a higher percentage bucket.

The Appellant, the erstwhile Resolution Professional/Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, filed an application (IA No. 2848 of 2025) before the Adjudicating Authority seeking payment of outstanding fees amounting to Rs. 9,12,953/-.

The Appellant had calculated his fees based on the "first bucket" (realization within six months) and "second bucket" (realization within the next six months) by suo-moto excluding 495 days from the liquidation period due to COVID-19, medical grounds, and resumption of auctions.

The Adjudicating Authority, however, found that even after excluding certain periods, the realization occurred after one year.

It held that the Appellant was entitled to fees under the "third bucket" (after one year) and determined that the Appellant had withdrawn an excess amount of Rs. 72,51,530/- plus GST, which was ordered to be refunded to the liquidation estate.

The court applied Regulation 4(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which mandates a tiered fee structure (buckets) for Liquidators based on the period within which the realization of assets and distribution of proceeds occur from the liquidation commencement date.

The court also considered the principle of "excluded periods," acknowledging mandatory COVID-19 lockdowns and specific judicial exemptions for medical exigencies as valid grounds for calculating effective liquidation time.

The Tribunal analyzed the Appellant’s claim for the exclusion of 141 days under Item No. 3 ("fresh auctions resumed offer Medical accident").

It reasoned that while the Adjudicating Authority had already taken a "liberal view" by excluding 495 days (including COVID-19 and a 70-day medical exemption), the subsequent 141-day delay in resuming auctions could not be excluded as the realization must be pegged to the actual date of receipt, not an earlier theoretical date.

Since the actual realization occurred after one year from the effective commencement date, the fee structure shifted to the lower percentage prescribed in the "third bucket".

The Tribunal found no logic in the Appellant's calculation and upheld the Respondent’s re-computation which showed that the Appellant had significantly overcharged the Corporate Debtor's account.

The Tribunal affirmed that the realization occurred after one year, making the Appellant eligible for fees only under the "third bucket".

Consequently, the Appellant remains liable to refund the excess amount of Rs. 72,51,530/- plus GST @ 18% and interest @ 12% p.a. as directed by the lower authority.

Delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned.