Committee's Choice Denied: New Resolution Professional Appointed. Allegations Unsubstantiated.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application to change the Interim Resolution Professional, despite unanimous support from the Committee of Creditors, due to lack of valid reasons. A new Resolution Professional was appointed based on the lack of progress during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Allegations against the Resolution Professional were deemed unsubstantiated. The Tribunal emphasized that detailed grounds for replacement were not mandatory and extended the resolution process period by 90 days to allow engagement of the proposed Resolution Professional, disposing of pending extension applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for change of Interim Resolution Professional and appointment of a new Resolution Professional.
2. Lack of progress during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
3. Allegations against the Resolution Professional.
4. Decision-making process of the Committee of Creditors.
5. Extension of the resolution process period.

Analysis:
1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for changing the Interim Resolution Professional and appointing a new Resolution Professional, despite the decision being supported by 100% voting share of the Committee of Creditors. The rejection was based on the lack of valid reasons presented by the Committee of Creditors for the change. The matter regarding the extension of time was left pending.

2. It was argued that during the 180-day period, no significant progress was made by the Interim Resolution Professional, leading to the decision to appoint a new Resolution Professional with the unanimous support of the Committee of Creditors. The lack of progress was a key factor in this decision-making process.

3. Allegations were made against the Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors, which were deemed unsubstantiated and not based on record. The Information Memorandum was not prepared due to non-cooperation from the Directors/Partners of the Corporate Debtor. However, the failure to bring this to the attention of the Adjudicating Authority within the stipulated time frame was noted.

4. The decision-making process of the Committee of Creditors was scrutinized, with the Tribunal emphasizing that specific grounds for the replacement of the Resolution Professional were not mandatory as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal highlighted that delaying the process by requiring detailed reasons for replacement was not in the interest of the resolution process.

5. In the interest of the resolution process, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the Committee of Creditors to engage the proposed Resolution Professional. The period for the resolution process was extended by 90 days, with the extension starting from the date of receipt of the order. Any pending applications for extension of time were also disposed of as a part of this judgment.

---