2021 (3) TMI 1241 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appointment of IRP of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - The Respondent in the present Appeal is the Corporate Debtor. In the set of facts which we have, it is not necessary for us to call the Corporate Debtor and hear the Corporate Debtor on the issue. As such it appears to us to be in the ends of Justice that we should pass orders in this Appeal giving necessary directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Appeal is disposed off with directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to urgently pass whatever orders the Adjudicating Authority wants to pass with regard to appointment of IRP in place of Mr. Arun Jain who it is stated has conveyed unwillingness to take up the assignment

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
2. Delay in passing orders by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the appointment of an IRP.
3. Allegations of the promoter benefiting from the delay in appointing an IRP.
4. Lack of action by the Adjudicating Authority on pending applications by other home-buyers to substitute the IRP.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
The Appellant filed an appeal due to the failure to appoint an IRP after the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC. The appointed IRP, Mr. Arun Jain, expressed unwillingness to take up the assignment, leading to the Appellant filing a petition for the appointment of a new IRP. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not pass any orders, causing a delay in the resolution process.

Issue 2: Delay in passing orders by the Adjudicating Authority
Despite the Appellant's efforts to address the issue of the IRP's unwillingness to accept the appointment, the Adjudicating Authority did not take prompt action. The delay in appointing a new IRP created uncertainty and allowed the promoter to continue managing the Corporate Debtor, potentially exploiting the situation for personal benefit.

Issue 3: Allegations of the promoter benefiting from the delay
The Appellant raised concerns that the promoter of the Corporate Debtor was taking advantage of the delay in appointing a new IRP. The situation highlighted the importance of timely resolution processes to prevent any party from exploiting the lack of oversight or management in insolvency proceedings.

Issue 4: Lack of action on pending applications by other home-buyers
The Adjudicating Authority faced criticism for not addressing pending applications by other home-buyers seeking to substitute the IRP. This inaction contributed to the overall delay and inefficiency in the resolution process, impacting the rights and interests of multiple stakeholders involved in the insolvency proceedings.

In the judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to urgently appoint a new IRP within 10 days, emphasizing the need to expedite the process and ensure the continuity of the CIRP. The Tribunal also highlighted the possibility of taking contempt action against the IRP who refused the appointment, underscoring the importance of compliance and efficiency in insolvency proceedings under the IBC.