2022 (11) TMI 957 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Initiation of CIRP - Personal Guarantor - Appointment of RP on suggestion of Creditor instead of nomination of RP by the Board - Application for Personal Insolvency was filed by the Creditor-State Bank of India and not by the Resolution Professional - Section 95 of IBC - HELD THAT:- On looking into the scheme of the IBC and Rules framed thereunder, Applications filed by Debtors and Creditors including Applications filed under Section 7, 9 and 10, the particulars of proposed Interim Resolution Professional are always provided which is apparent from Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority), Rules, 2016 where Form 5 and Form 6 provides for filing of the Application by Operational Creditor where the Applicants are required to mention the proposed Insolvency Resolution Professional. Form 1 deals with an Application to be filed by Financial Creditor where also particulars of the proposed Insolvency Resolution Professional are to be given by the Applicant himself. Thus the mere fact that Applicants in Applications under Section 7, 9 and 10 as well as in Section 94 and 95 provides details of Insolvency Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional by the Applicant himself, no bias can be read into the said procedure. The Scheme of IBC is such that IRP/RP plays a pivotal role in Insolvency Resolution Process.
Thus we are not satisfied that the mere fact that Resolution Professional has been recommended by the Applicant, he shall have bias in favour of the Application filed by him and he shall always submit a report of admitting the Application any bias has to be read in the scheme. The RP is to perform his function and duties as per the IBC and the Rules which castes duty on the Resolution Professional to act in accordance with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.
There are no substance in the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that Resolution Professional recommended by the Applicant is biased and appointment of Mr. Sunil Kumar Kabra is bad in law - appeal dismissed.