TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal, appoints new Resolution Professional from IBBI list. No costs awarded.</h1> <h3>Sandeep Kumar Gupta Versus Stewarts And Lloyds of India Ltd. And Anr.</h3> Sandeep Kumar Gupta Versus Stewarts And Lloyds of India Ltd. And Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Appointment of Resolution Professional as Liquidator2. Failure to complete Resolution Plan3. Authority to replace Resolution ProfessionalAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Resolution Professional against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, which declined to appoint the Resolution Professional as Liquidator due to alleged failure in completing the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority appointed another individual as Liquidator instead. The Resolution Professional contended that the observations made against him were contrary to the facts and that he had duly issued advertisements inviting Resolution Plans, which were approved by the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority.2. The Resolution Professional argued that as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, he could only be replaced as Liquidator under specific circumstances outlined in the Code. These circumstances included the rejection of the Resolution Plan or a recommendation by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for replacement. The Resolution Professional asserted that since there was no Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, the conditions for his replacement were not met, and there was no recommendation from the IBBI for his replacement.3. The Adjudicating Authority noted that only one meeting of the Committee of Creditors had taken place within 180 days, and no progress was made thereafter. The Resolution Professional reported that no Resolution Plan had been submitted by any Resolution Applicant before the completion of the 180-day period. While the court did not find misconduct on the part of the Resolution Professional, it upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint another person as Resolution Professional or Liquidator due to dissatisfaction with the Resolution Professional's performance. The appointment of a Resolution Professional from the list provided by the IBBI was considered a recommendation by the IBBI.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court held that the Adjudicating Authority was justified in appointing a new Resolution Professional based on the unsatisfactory performance of the original Resolution Professional, despite no misconduct being found.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
