TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out of the said list submitted by the ‘Board’, it should be treated to be an appointment of ‘Resolution Professional’/’Liquidator’ on the recommendation of the ‘Board’. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Mr. S. J. Mukhopadhaya And Mr. Bansi Lal Bhat, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocates For The Respondents : Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi and Mr. B.N. Dubey, Advocates for IBBI. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. These appeals have been preferred by Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, the Resolution Professional against orders dated 26th October, 2017 and 15th November, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recommendation of the Corporate Debtor is baseless. 5. As regards the removal of the Appellant, it was submitted that as per sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Resolution Professional can only act as Liquidator for the purpose of liquidation and can be replaced by the Adjudicating Authority only on the ground as stipulated in sub-section (4) of Section 34. The replacement in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 34 can only take place in two eventualities i.e. in case the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Professional under Section 30 is rejected for failure to meet the requirement in sub-section (2) of Section 30 or in case the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and not been disputed by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority also noticed that within 180 days only one meeting of the Committee of Creditors took place on 12th June, 2017 and thereafter no progress was made as no meeting of Committee of Creditors was held. Ultimately just before completion of 180 days, the Resolution Professional submitted his report that no Resolution Plan has been submitted by any Resolution Applicant . 10. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, while we hold that the observations made in the impugned order should not be construed to be misconduct on the part of the Appellant, but as we find that the Adjudicating Authority was not satisfied with the performance of the Resolution Professional , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
