9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 255 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyReplacement of IRP - Submission of appellants were not considered - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the Appellant was appointed as IRP by order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 09.02.2023 which appointment was not even confirmed by the CoC since no resolution could be passed by the CoC confirming the Appellant as Resolution Professional. From the facts it is clear that the first agenda for 1st CoC meeting was issued only on 03.03.2023 which meeting could not be concluded by Appellant till April 2023. CoC was left with no remedy except to file an IA No.1874 of 2023 seeking a direction for convening a meeting with agenda of replacement of the IRP on which order was passed on 12.05.2023 directing the Appellant to hold the meeting within one week from receipt of the order. In spite of the order dated 12.05.2023, no meeting was convened by the Appellant with the agenda of the replacement of the IRP and ultimately the Adjudicating Authority had to pass another order on 27.09.2023 issuing direction to convene the meeting. From the facts which have been brought on the record, it is clear that the appointment of the Appellant as IRP was never confirmed by the CoC nor any material has been brought on record to indicate that the appointment of IRP was confirmed by the CoC by majority of not less than 66% of the vote. When Appellant s appointment as IRP has not been confirmed, the Appellant could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 - The objection which was raised before the Adjudicating Authority that the State Bank of India has assigned its debt, hence, it has no locus to file the application has been dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. It has been noticed in paragraph 3 that assignment was made on 12.10.2023 whereas the application IA No.1874 of 2023 was filed in May 2023 and the resolution to replace the IRP was passed on 06.10.2023 i.e. much before the assignment of debt. There is no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 17.10.2023 - There is no merit in the Appeal - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 3. Alleged non-cooperation by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 4. Pending applications and their impact on the decision. Summary: Issue 1: Replacement of the IRP The appeal challenges the order dated 17.10.2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which allowed the replacement of the Appellant (IRP) with a new Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Prawincharan Prafulcharan Dwary, based on the CoC's resolution dated 06.10.2023. The CoC's decision was supported by 100% votes. Issue 2: Compliance with Procedural Requirements under IBC The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 09.02.2023, appointing the Appellant as IRP. Despite directions from the Adjudicating Authority on 12.05.2023 to convene a CoC meeting to discuss the replacement of the IRP, the Appellant failed to do so. Consequently, another order was issued on 27.09.2023, leading to the CoC meeting on 06.10.2023, where the resolution for the replacement was passed. Issue 3: Alleged Non-Cooperation by the CoC The Appellant alleged non-cooperation by the CoC, claiming that the first CoC meeting was not concluded until April 2023 and that the CoC did not cooperate with the IRP. However, the Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to convene the meeting despite multiple directions and that the CoC had acted within its rights under the IBC. Issue 4: Pending Applications and Their Impact The Appellant argued that pending applications, including a Contempt Application and a claim for CIRP expenses, should have been resolved before deciding on the replacement. However, the Tribunal noted that these applications were scheduled for hearing on 26.10.2023 and did not impact the decision on the replacement of the IRP. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the CoC's resolution to replace the IRP was in accordance with the provisions of the IBC. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's claims of procedural violations or non-cooperation by the CoC. The decision to replace the IRP was upheld as valid and binding.
|
