Resolution Professional replacement must follow the Code's creditor and disciplinary mechanisms, not a direct stakeholder application.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 vests replacement of a resolution professional in the committee of creditors under Section 27. Section 60(5) does not create a parallel remedy for an operational creditor or other stakeholder to directly seek displacement of the resolution professional. Allegations of misconduct or contravention by an insolvency professional must be pursued through the complaint, inspection, investigation and disciplinary mechanism under Sections 217, 218 and 220. On that statutory scheme, a direct application for replacement is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an operational creditor had locus to seek replacement of the resolution professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether grievances regarding the resolution professional's conduct had to be pursued through the statutory complaint mechanism before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.

Analysis: The power to replace a resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution process is specifically vested in the committee of creditors under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 60(5) confers jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority in insolvency-related questions, but it does not override the express scheme of Section 27 or create a parallel remedy for a stakeholder to directly seek displacement of the resolution professional. Allegations concerning misconduct or contravention by an insolvency professional are addressed through the complaint, inspection, investigation, and disciplinary framework under Sections 217, 218, and 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The application for replacement of the resolution professional was not maintainable at the instance of the appellant, and the appeal failed.

---