2021 (7) TMI 1378 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appointment of IRP - no intimation communicated to him being appointed as IRP either by Registry or by Operational Creditor or by Corporate Debtor - whether CIRP could be commenced by said IRP or not? - HELD THAT - It seems that the Operational Creditor is not bothered about his own claim, else for more than 330 days we do not understand how the applicant having claim of more than of crore of rupees will sit over under the impression, will not make enquiry either with registry or with the proposed IRP whose name was known to him as he had received the certified copy of the order and one fine day will make an application for change of IRP s name. IBBI is directed not to initiate any enquiry till further orders, if any enquiry is initiated, the same be halted till further direction from this Court. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) without proper intimation, failure to commence Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), lack of communication between parties, request for setting aside an order and recalling an enquiry by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

In the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, the issue at hand revolved around the appointment of the IRP without proper intimation. The IRP, appointed via an order dated 20.03.2020, claimed that there was no communication regarding the appointment from the Registry, Operational Creditor, or Corporate Debtor. Consequently, the Corporate Debtor proceeded ex parte, necessitating the IRP to take up duties without prior notice. The IRP's counsel highlighted the lack of intimation received, leading to the inability to commence the CIRP. Additionally, the Operational Creditor had filed an application for the replacement of the IRP, which was not allowed, but an enquiry against the IRP was directed by IBBI. The IRP's counsel emphasized being unaware of the proceedings, as the Operational Creditor's application was not served on him. Therefore, the IRP requested to set aside the order dated 06.07.2021 and recall the IBBI's enquiry. On the other hand, the Operational Creditor claimed to have received the application copy but presumed the Registry would inform the IRP. However, the IRP's inaction resulted in the non-deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. The Tribunal directed IBBI to refrain from initiating any enquiry until further orders, halting any ongoing enquiry until instructed otherwise.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for various applications, including IA No. 1346/ND/2021, IA NO. 3253/ND/2021, and another application by the Operational Creditor, IA No. 190/ND/2021, seeking rectification of the order dated 06.07.2021. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper communication and intimation in insolvency proceedings to ensure the efficient functioning of the CIRP. It highlighted the responsibilities of all parties involved, including the IRP, Operational Creditor, and Registry, in facilitating a smooth resolution process. The decision to halt any ongoing enquiry by IBBI showcased the Tribunal's commitment to fair proceedings and adherence to due process. The case underscored the significance of timely communication and active participation to avoid delays and confusion in insolvency matters.