TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider (Paragraph xvii of IA) is factually in-correct - CoC has taken an informed decision by 100 % voting while appointing EY Restructuring LLP as support service provider to Resolution Professional and after taking into consideration there was no conflict of interest. We are of the considered view; it is the commercial wisdom of the CoC what to do best in the interest of the resolution process. Also, this Adjudicating Authority cannot be called to sit in appeal over decision of CoC - It is also not understood as to how the applicant who is a suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor is concerned about the fee payable as determined by the CoC for carrying out CIRP in an effective manner. Section 60 (5) of the Code, the residuary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vener) : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Jain, Adv. For Yes Bank : Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sounak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. SaptarshiSaha, Adv. ORDER Per: Rohit Kapoor, Member (Judicial) 1. The Court is convened through hybrid mode. 2. One Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor through the medium of instant Application IA(IB) filed under Rule 11 read with Section 60(5) of the Code of National Company Law Tribunal filed on 9-06-2022 before this Tribunal has sought the following reliefs; - i. Stay the operation of the Expression of Interest issued by the Resolution Professional under Regulation 36A (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 on April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f support services to the IRP/RP for the duration of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process of the Corporate Debtor. The copy of the minutes of the meeting of the CoC held on 11th of March 2022 has been annexed as Annexure A6 with the application. The Applicant is aggrieved of issuance of EOI and appointment of E Y Restructuring LLP as the advisor and provider of support services to the IRP/RP on various grounds as set out in this IA. The applicant has stated that he has reasonable apprehension that confidential and privileged information shared by the Corporate Debtor with the supports service provider can be misused by Resolution Professional. 3.4 There is mala fide and collusive action taken by Resolution professional. Ref: (Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the garb of this application filed on 09-06-2022 is seeking review/recalling of order dated 11th of February, 2022 passed by this Adjudicating Authority while admitting an application under Section 7 of the Code. We of the considered view, this application is not maintainable as this Applicant in this present application cannot be permitted to re-argue/reopen order of admission passed in application under Section 7 on 11-02- 2022 which has attained finality. It is not some error as such which can be corrected by this Adjudicating Authority while exercising powers under section 11 of NCLT Rules. iii. Ref: Review Application No. 13 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 379 of 2020, Decided On: 03.02.2021, in Adish Jain vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport service provider and not the RP, therefore, contention of applicant the resolution professional appointed the support service provider (Paragraph xvii of IA) is factually in-correct. b. CoC has taken an informed decision by 100 % voting while appointing EY Restructuring LLP as support service provider to Resolution Professional and after taking into consideration there was no conflict of interest. We are of the considered view; it is the commercial wisdom of the CoC what to do best in the interest of the resolution process. Also, this Adjudicating Authority cannot be called to sit in appeal over decision of CoC. c. It is also not understood as to how the applicant who is a suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
