Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 803 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking replacement of IRP appointing another professional as the RP - Section 22 of the IBC - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the material on record that the CoC in its second meeting held on 15.07.2022 decided to replace IRP. In fact, there is no much difference in between provisions of Section 22 of IBC and Section 27 of IBC except that the Section 22 of IBC to be invoked for replacement of IRP to the RP and Section 27 of IBC to be invoked in case of replacement of RP during the CIRP of Corporate Debtor. However, both the provisions mandates that the CoC to pass such resolution by not less than 66% of votes. The Adjudicating Authority, in general to accept such recommendation and forward the same to IBBI for confirmation. In short the CoC has power to replace IRP by invoking Section 22 of IBC. In this case, it is not done in the first CoC meeting but it has been in 2nd CoC meeting. The resolution to replace IRP passed by 92.76% votes. Appointment of Mr. Ashish Chhawchharia is objected on the ground that he is not independent qua Corporate Debtor. There is no law imposing such restrictions on appointment of the RP. In the case which is relied on by the learned counsel for the Suspended Management, the facts were quite different. CIRP in that case was almost at concluding stage. The RP in that case had worked a lot and this Adjudicating Authority found that RP sought to be replaced by the CoC was without disclosing any reasons. In this case, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor is just commenced. The objection raised by the Suspended Management of the Corporate Debtor are not sustainable. The Suspended Management appears to raise objection only to protract the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Appeal allowed.
|