Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 12 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAIDeliberate and wilful disobedience - Contempt Proceedings - clear cut stand of the Appellant/Applicant is that the Insolvency Resolution Professional is to maintain integrity by being honest, straight forward, forthright in all his professional relationships and that the Insolvency Resolution Professional is not to misrepresent any fact situation and refrain himself - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority is to adhere to the procedural aspects, while determining the question of priorities, question of law and facts, arising out of an order, of course, depending on the issue involved - In fact, the Appellant/Applicant in IA/971/IB/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 had prayed for the removal and replacement of the 2nd Respondent as Resolution Professional of the 1st Respondent immediately on account of suppression of facts about the Contempt Proceedings and to report to the IBBI relating to the conduct of the Resolution Professional and to state a frivolous Arbitration Proceedings at Madras High Court filed by the Respondent. Although, an emphatic argument is projected on the side of the Appellant/Applicant that the Appellant/Applicant is empowered to prefer an Application under Section 27 Read with Section 60 (5) of the I&B Code, 2016 this Tribunal is of the considered view that the Appellant/Applicant is not showered with any Locus to prefer an Application praying for Displacement/Replacement of the Resolution Professional. In fact, Section 27 speaks of Replacement of Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors - Section 60(5) deals with Question of Priority or Question of fact relating to the I&B Code. When there is an express Provision namely Section 27 of the Code, which unerringly deals with Replacement of Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors, then, the same is to be followed/adhered to by the Litigant/Stakeholders and others connected with the I&B Code. Even the saddling of penalty by the Disciplinary Committee is permissible as per Section 220(3) of the I&B Code, 2016 and only when the said Committee is subjectively satisfied there exists a sufficient cause in imposing a penalty upon the deviant. Looking at from any angle, the ‘Appeal’ sans merits - Appeal dismissed.
|