2022 (2) TMI 1229 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Replacement of Resolution Professional - appointment of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta as Resolution Professional by replacing Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, the Resolution Professional - Section 27(3) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is directed that Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta be appointed as Resolution Professional, replacing Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, the current Resolution Professional. Also, the new Resolution Professional to reconstitute the Committee of Creditors as per the prescribed rules and regulations in the Code. Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, Resolution Professional, shall hand over the entire record and the assets of the corporate debtor, if any, in his possession to the newly appointed Resolution Professional immediately - Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta shall take over the charge of the entire records and assets of the corporate debtor and perform his duties, as required under the Code and the Regulations - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appointment of Resolution Professional under Section 27(3) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
The application sought the replacement of the current Resolution Professional, Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, with Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the debtor was initiated based on an application by an operational creditor. Mr. Singhal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the Tribunal. After the formation of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and subsequent meetings, a resolution was passed to replace Mr. Singhal with Mr. Gupta as the Resolution Professional. The applicant alleged that actions taken by the current Resolution Professional post the application filing were unauthorized and aimed at increasing costs. The respondents did not object to the replacement but requested payment of fees and expenses incurred by the outgoing Resolution Professional.

The Tribunal considered the submissions, including the expenses incurred by the outgoing Resolution Professional, and relied on relevant judgments to make a determination. It was observed that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to decide the payable amount in the CIRP process and must assess the reasonableness of fees paid to the Resolution Professional. Referring to a previous order, the Tribunal directed the CoC to pay the expenses of the outgoing IRP. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to appoint Mr. Gupta as the new Resolution Professional, instructing him to take charge of all records and assets, file necessary documents, and provide regular progress reports. The reconstituted CoC was tasked with evaluating the fees of the outgoing Resolution Professional in their first meeting after the replacement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application by appointing Mr. Gupta as the new Resolution Professional, outlining specific directions for the transition process and ongoing responsibilities. The decision aimed to ensure a smooth continuation of the CIRP while addressing the concerns raised regarding the actions of the outgoing Resolution Professional.