9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Appellants - Members of COC against Impugned Order dated 17th December, 2019 passed in I.A. Nos.659 and 670 of 2019 in C.P (IB) No.84/BB/2019 which Order has been passed in continuation with detailed Order in I.A. Nos.660. 661, 662, 668, 669 and 675 of 2019 in C.P (IB) No.84/BB/2019 copy of which is at Page - 47. The CIRP relates to Corporate Debtor - M/s. Dreamz Infra India Ltd. The grievance of the Appellant is that in spite of provisions under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC - in short), the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru) did not appoint persons selected by the COC (Committee of Creditors) as Resolution Professional and Authorized Representative and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative (AR). The learned Counsel referred to the Resolution at Page - 211 of the Appeal Paper Book to point out that from the different persons whose names were considered, the COC approved the name of "Mr. Konduru Prasanth Raju" as the Resolution Professional by 90% voting. 5. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that subsequently, even Respondent No.1 congratulated Mr. Hari T. Devadiga as well as Mr. Konduru Prasanth Raju by sending e-mails, copies of which are at Page Nos.203 and 220. 6. The learned Counsel is pointing out that Mr. Hari T. Devadiga the person who was selected by COC as Authorized Representative filed I.A. No.670 of 2019 in CP No. (IB) 84/BB/2019 (Annexure A-27) on behalf of COC requesting the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Respondent No.1 as RP and the Respondent No.2 as the Authorized Representative instead of Konduru Prasanth Raju and Hari T. Devadiga. The learned Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority could not have done this. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 referred to the Reply filed to submit that the Adjudicating Authority took into consideration the volume of the work to be done and considered the interest of the Company to not approve the decision of the COC and to make the appointments of Respondents 1 and 2. The learned Counsel referred to para - 14(6) of the Impugned Order relevant part of which reads as under:- "(6) When we have asked IRP Shri Ashok Kriplani and Mr. Viswanathan, earlier proposed AR, who are present in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised. 10. Section 22 of IBC reads as under:- "22. Appointment of Resolution Professional.-(1) The first meeting of the committee of creditors shall be held within seven days of the constitution of the committee of creditors. (2) The committee of creditors, may, in the first meeting, by a majority vote of not less than [sixty-six] percent of the voting share of the financial creditors, either resolve to appoint the interim resolution professional as a resolution professional or to replace the interim resolution professional by another resolution professional. (3) Where the committee of creditors resolves under sub-section (2)- (a) to continue the interim resolution professional as resolution professional [subject to a written con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file Application before Adjudicating Authority to appoint proposed Resolution Professional. This was done when IA No.670 of 2019 was filed informing the Adjudicating Authority regarding the selection of Konduru Prasanth Raju as RP. Sub-Section (4) of Section 22 provides that the Adjudicating Authority in such situation should forward the name of the Resolution Professional proposed under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) to the IBBI (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India) for confirmation and such appointment will be made after confirmation by the Board. Under Sub-Section (5) of Section 22 if the Board does not confirm the name of the proposed Resolution Professional within 10 days of the receipt of the name of the proposed Resolution Profe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The interim resolution professional shall apply to the Adjudicating Authority for appointment of the authorised representatives selected under subregulation (1) within two days of the verification of claims received under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12." When Section 21(6-A) is read with these Regulations, and Resolutions passed by COC are kept in view, it is apparent that the Adjudicating Authority was required to treat Mr. Hari T. Devadiga as Authorized Representative whose name was even recognised by the Respondent No.1 when he filed CA No.669 of 2019. We find Adjudicating Authority had no power to impose Resolution Professional of its choice. Even for Authorised Representative decision of the majority is to be respected. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
