Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 174 - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Replacement of the Resolution Professional - Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any notice to the Appellant - Section 27 of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the CoC in its meeting dated 04.06.2022 with 100% vote has decided to replace the Appellant with another Resolution Professional. When we look into the scheme of Section 27 as delineated by the statute, it does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing to the Resolution Professionals be given by the Adjudicating Authority before approving the proposal of new Resolution Professional. Section 27 requires the CoC to forward the name of proposed Resolution Professional to the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority is required to forward the name of the proposed Resolution Professional to the Board for its confirmation. The scheme of Section 27 does not indicate that Resolution Profession is to be made party and is to be issued notice before taking decision to appoint another Resolution Professional.
Looking to the purpose and object of the I&B Code, where timeline is the essential factor to be taken into consideration at all stages, there is no warrant to permit a Lis to be raised by the Resolution Professional challenging his replacement by the CoC. The decision taken by the CoC is a decision by vote of 66% and when the decision is by votes of a collective body, the decision is not easily assailable and replacement is complete as per Scheme of Section 27 when the resolution is passed with requisite 66% voting share - thus, it is clear that replacement of Resolution Professional is complete when required decision is taken by the CoC in its meeting with requisite majority.
There are no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority allowing replacement of Resolution Professional. There is no merit in the Appeal - Appeal is dismissed.