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>Tribunal upholds Committee of Creditors' decision on Resolution Professional appointment</h1> <h3>Committee of Creditors of LEEL Electricals Ltd. Through State Bank of India Versus Leel Electricals Ltd. Through its Interim Resolution Professional, Arvind Mittal</h3> Committee of Creditors of LEEL Electricals Ltd. Through State Bank of India Versus Leel Electricals Ltd. Through its Interim Resolution Professional, ... Issues:Adjourning matter for filing affidavit by Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) | Grounds for granting time to IRP | Resolution to substitute IRP by Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 22 of I&B Code | Applicability of Section 27 | Commercial decision of Committee of Creditors | Judicial review of decisions under Section 22 | Role of Adjudicating Authority | Legal rights of IRP | Resolution Process for Corporate DebtorAnalysis:The judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, involved the appeal against an order adjourning the matter for the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to file an affidavit regarding the resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to replace the IRP with a Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (I&B) Code. The Appellant contended that there was no need for the IRP to provide any objection or reply once the CoC had decided to substitute the IRP. The Appellant's counsel argued that the resolution was passed under Section 22 and not Section 27 of the I&B Code. The Respondent, however, claimed that the impugned order was based on the resolution under Section 27.The Tribunal highlighted that the decision to appoint an RP or replace the IRP fell within the commercial wisdom of the CoC, as per Section 22 of the I&B Code, and was not subject to judicial review. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that the actions taken by the CoC, such as replacing the IRP with a new RP, were permissible under Section 22. The Tribunal criticized the Adjudicating Authority for unnecessarily invoking Section 27, causing delays in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It was noted that the IRP should have respected the CoC's decision and gracefully accepted the resolution.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to proceed with the Resolution Process for the Corporate Debtor with the appointed RP, Mr. Gangaram Agarwal, in accordance with the CoC's resolution. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of respecting the commercial decisions of the CoC and avoiding unnecessary delays in the insolvency proceedings.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues surrounding the appointment of Resolution Professionals and the role of the Committee of Creditors in insolvency proceedings under the I&B Code.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
