9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion before Bench No. 2 of this Tribunal on 12/03/2020. The copy of the order passed by the Bench is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed through E-mail as annexure "B". : The relevant extract of the order read as follows: "IA(IB) 392/KB/20 is filed by one of the creditors of the corporate debtor. Resolution was passed earlier by 100% vote share for change of RP while this application is being moved, RP received one more claim from the creditor, due to which voting percentage of the applicant reduced to 25% only. We require more than 66% of the CoC members to change RP. Issue notice to the RP. He did not appear in person. If he does not appear, this application shall be heard and disposed off without his presence. Matter to appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by its 100% vote share in the 1st CoC meeting wherein the applicant was the sole member. 6. According to the Ld. Counsel Ms. Manju Bhuteria, the applicant is under tremendous financial crisis and its request to reduce the expenses including expenses for appoint of Transaction Auditor, has not been taken care by the RP and he failed and/or neglected to consider the said request. Moreover, the Corporate Debtor Company had already been struck off and as such there are various additional expenses to be incurred during the CIRP period. She also would submit that adding one another claim of the financial creditor on the strength of CD financial statement is doubtful and that he relied upon an un stamped financial statement which was then correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one another financial creditor were denied by him. According to him he had verified the claim in accordance with Regulation 13 of the IBBI (IRP For Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and there is no illegality in admitting the claim and reconstituting the CoC. 8. The ld. Counsel for the applicant and the RP was heard at length. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and upon perusal of the documents, the short point that arises for determination is whether this application without supporting any resolution for removal/replacement of the RP is maintainable u/s 22(2) or 27(2) of the Code? 9. Admittedly the applicant had never moved any resolution in the CoC as per section 22(2) or u/s. 27(2) of the Code, and therefore, there was no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
