9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IRP offering himself for appointment as RP also did not cut any ice with the CoC. Ultimately, IRP was replaced by Mr. Gangaram Agarwal in terms of resolution passed in second CoC Meeting with 78% vote share of the Committee of Creditors. It is indisputable that these actions are permissible only within the ambit of Section 22 of I B Code. Therefore, invoking of Section 27 and adopting a protracted procedure in that regard, as appears to have been done by the Adjudicating Authority, is unwarranted. This only has resulted in wastage of time and prolonging the CIRP Process. In the face of CoC resolution passed with more than the requisite majority, it cannot lie in the mouth of IRP that any of his legal rights have been infringed. It would h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (RP) under Section 22 of the I B Code, has been assailed in this appeal on the ground that there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to have granted time to Interim Resolution Professional to file any objection/ reply to the resolution of Committee of Creditors. 2. Shri Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel representing the Appellant submits that it is settled law that the decision to substitute Interim Resolution Professional by Resolution Professional is a commercial decision, not required to be supported by any reasons. Once the Committee of Creditors has passed a resolution to substitute the Interim Resolution Professional by Resolution Professional, the Interim Resolution Professional has no role to play. It is submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26th November, 2020 emanating from the IRP, which clearly demonstrates that the IRP was mislead into believing that Section 22 of I B Code would apply only if IRP is replaced in first meeting of COC and not otherwise. This is clearly borne out by the email forming page 199 of the appeal paper book. 3. Shri Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent upon service of advance notice by Appellant submits that the impugned order came to be passed in the background of the resolution having been passed under Section 27 and not under Section 22 (3) of the I B Code. 4. The appeal was taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Section 16 (5) of the I B Code which, in its original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cut any ice with the CoC. Ultimately, IRP was replaced by Mr. Gangaram Agarwal in terms of resolution passed in second CoC Meeting with 78% vote share of the Committee of Creditors. It is indisputable that these actions are permissible only within the ambit of Section 22 of I B Code. Therefore, invoking of Section 27 and adopting a protracted procedure in that regard, as appears to have been done by the Adjudicating Authority, is unwarranted. This only has resulted in wastage of time and prolonging the CIRP Process. In the face of CoC resolution passed with more than the requisite majority, it cannot lie in the mouth of IRP that any of his legal rights have been infringed. It would have been wise on his part to bow to the commercial wisdom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
