Illegal liquidator appointment under insolvency law found void, with replacement directed despite a pending liquidation appeal.

The NCLT held that a liquidator's appointment could be interfered with under Section 34(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where it was not in accordance with law. Treating the challenge as confined to the legality of the appointment, the Tribunal concluded that the appointment was non est and ab initio void, and directed replacement of the liquidator. The pendency of an appeal against the liquidation order was noted, but it was not treated as a bar to this limited relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of the liquidator was liable to be set aside under Section 34(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and replaced on the ground that the appointment was contrary to law.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the challenge as one confined to the legality of the liquidator's appointment. It held that the proviso to Section 34(4)(a) enabled interference where the appointment was not in accordance with law, and concluded that the appointment in question was non est and ab initio void. The pendency of an appeal against the liquidation order was noted, but the Tribunal confined its order only to replacement of the liquidator and did not treat the pending appeal as a bar to that limited relief.

Conclusion: The appointment of the liquidator was held to be illegal, non est, and ab initio void, and replacement was directed.

---