2022 (11) TMI 647 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Seeking replacement of IRP - seeking replacement on the ground that the Interim Resolution Professional is working under the influence of the Suspended Board of Directors - bonafide intention or not - existence of nexus between Corporate Debtor and the Interim Resolution Professional - HELD THAT:- The principle of an interpretation of the Statute is that, when the language employed in the Relevant Section / towards a Proviso of Code / Act / Statute, then, it has to be read in a simple / plain and harmonious manner, without causing any volatile harm to the language used therein, and not in any other manner.

The ingredients of Section 22 (3) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 very clearly confers power on the Committee of Creditors to replace the Interim Resolution Professional, by preferring an Application before the Adjudicating Authority, for the Appointment of the Proposed Resolution Professional (along with the Written Consent from the Proposed Resolution Professional in the Specified Form) - When the ingredients of Section 22 (3) (b) of the Code explicitly spells out for the Appointment of the proposed Resolution Professional, then, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the ‘invocation of Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 cannot be pressed into service, in the teeth of the I&B Code, 2016, showering Powers only on the Committee of Creditors, to replace the Interim Resolution Professional.

This Tribunal, holds that the conclusion, arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru), observing that the said Interlocutory Application is not maintainable, for the Replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional, is free from any Legal Flaw - Appeal dismissed.