9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 409 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking to discharge/replace the Respondent as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - This Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 10.03.2021 though disposed of the said IA as premature, however directed the RP to carry out the basic enquiry of all surrounding facts to make out his case, make enquiries from all concerned parties with reference to the transactions highlighted in the Forensic Report, and come to some definite conclusion before referring the matter to this Tribunal under section 66 of the Code and then he may consider adding the parties to the transactions as Respondents and to revive the same application or to file a fresh application u/s. 66 of the Code. But the Respondent-RP failed to comply with the said direction of this Adjudicating Authority and hence he filed the instant Application. It is to be seen that this Adjudicating Authority while disposing of the IA No. 133 of 2020 vide order dated 10.03.2021, though not fixed any specific time to the RP to revive the said IA or to file a fresh petition after complying with the directions of this Adjudicating Authority, but the Respondent-RP cannot postpone the implementation of the directions issued by this Adjudicating Authority beyond a reasonable period - no further orders are required to be passed in the instant IA. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP). 2. Alleged misconduct and negligence of the RP. 3. Delay in forensic audit and related investigations. 4. Handling and recovery of dues from related parties. 5. Compliance with directions from the Tribunal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP): The Applicant sought the discharge and replacement of the RP, alleging misconduct and negligence in handling the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Applicant argued that the RP failed to conduct timely forensic audits, delayed investigations, and showed favoritism towards the suspended directors. However, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant lacked the locus standi to seek the RP's replacement under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and highlighted that a similar application (IA No. 106 of 2020) had been dismissed earlier. The Tribunal also referenced the Committee of Creditors (CoC) satisfaction with the RP's performance. 2. Alleged Misconduct and Negligence of the RP: The Applicant accused the RP of failing to provide necessary documents to the forensic auditor, delaying the issuance of the forensic report, and not initiating actions against the suspended promoters. The RP was also alleged to have ignored fraudulent transactions and failed to secure the Corporate Debtor’s assets. The RP defended his actions, stating that delays were due to the non-cooperation of the Corporate Debtor's erstwhile directors and the shutdown of the Corporate Debtor's offices since 2016. The RP also cited Section 233 of the IBC, which protects insolvency professionals for actions done in good faith. 3. Delay in Forensic Audit and Related Investigations: The Applicant highlighted significant delays in conducting the forensic audit and providing necessary information to the forensic auditor. The RP acknowledged the delays but attributed them to the vast scope of the audit and the lack of cooperation from the Corporate Debtor's directors. The Tribunal noted that while the RP is required to comply with the directions of the Tribunal, practical difficulties such as the COVID-19 pandemic and non-cooperation from the promoters were acknowledged. 4. Handling and Recovery of Dues from Related Parties: The Applicant alleged that the RP failed to recover dues from related parties, particularly M/s. Shri Durga Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., which owed the Corporate Debtor a significant amount. The RP contended that despite issuing notices, the lack of documentation and non-cooperation from the related parties hindered recovery efforts. The Tribunal recognized the RP’s efforts and the practical challenges faced in recovering dues from non-cooperative related parties. 5. Compliance with Directions from the Tribunal: The Tribunal had previously directed the RP to conduct further enquiries and file a fresh application or revive the earlier application (IA No. 133 of 2020) under Section 66 of the IBC. The RP admitted to not filing a fresh application but justified the delay due to the pandemic and non-cooperation from the Corporate Debtor's promoters. The Tribunal emphasized that the RP must comply with its directions within a reasonable period and ordered the RP to comply with the earlier directions within 30 days. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the instant IA (IA No. 248 of 2021) without granting the replacement of the RP but directed the RP to comply with the previous order dated 10.03.2021 in IA No. 133 of 2020 within 30 days. The Tribunal acknowledged the RP's practical difficulties but emphasized the need for timely compliance with its directions.
|
