TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2016 with prayer to appoint new Interim Resolution Professional. 2. The brief facts of the case are: 2.1 CP(IB) 397 of 2018 was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "IB Code") by M/s. Abhinandan Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. which was admitted vide order dated 06.09.2019 whereby Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as "IRP") was appointed. After taking the charge, IRP made public announcement and thereafter, Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred as "CoC") was constituted. 2.2 In the 1st CoC meeting held on 16.10.2019, IRP provided the list of Financial Creditors along with the voting share for each credit or as prepared by him. It is submitted by the IRP that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also assigned voting rights to the creditors which caused the voting share of secured Financial Creditors to be reduced to only 36.53%. 2.5 In view of such situation, the whole problem has aroused with regard to the appointment of IRP/RP as no majority could be reached into for appointment of IRP/RP. Consequently, the instant application was filed apart from other miscellaneous applications. The Applicant along with other creditors has apprehended that IRP has not conducted any diligence on whether the 30 Non Financial Institutions are in anyway related to promoters or part of the promoter group. While putting queries to this issue by the Applicant, IRP/RP merely suggested that he does not believe that the parties are related. However, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he unsecured loan raised from the other Financial Creditors are duly reflected in the Annual Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor which have been in a public domain and is available with the Applicant/ other consortium Banks, who have considered credit facilities. Hence, the allegation with regard to 1st CoC meeting is redundant. The voting share is determined on the basis of the claim value, duly supported by the documents filed by the Financial Creditors along with their claim. The Respondent further submitted that IRP/RP has limited role in such cases as contained under Regulation of CIRP Regulations 2016. 5. Further, during the pendency of the instant application, Charms Holding Private Limited filed an affidavit in reply submitting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appointment of IRP/RP, the majority of 66% of voting share could not be achieved which is the main root cause of conflict. 9. On perusal of the record, it is found that secured Financial Creditors has proposed the name of Mr. Sanjay Gupta as the new IRP of the Corporate Debtor to which the Respondent i.e. IRP as well as some of the Financial Creditors did not agree, which is the main cause of stalemate. 10. It is pertinent to mention herein that the CP(IB) 397 of 2018 was admitted on 06.09.2019 and after the 1st CoC meeting, the dispute with regard to the appointment of IRP arose because of difference in voting share. Consequent upon which, multiple miscellaneous applications have been filed. The 180 days of CIRP period ha....