Tribunal upholds Liquidator appointment under Insolvency Code, dismissing appeal for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the appointment of the Respondent as Liquidator under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal found no evidence of misconduct in the appointment process, highlighting the CoC's decision and commercial wisdom in appointing the Respondent. The Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, leading to the appeal being deemed meritless and dismissed without costs, with pending applications closed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal against the appointment of Liquidator under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Brief Facts:
The Appellant, a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the Respondent was appointed as Liquidator by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) despite the Resolution Professional's willingness to continue. The Appellant alleged violations of Section 34(1) and Section 34(4) of the IBC, 2016. The Appellant filed an appeal seeking to set aside the appointment of the Respondent as Liquidator.

Appellant's Submissions:
The Appellant, as a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Liquidator, citing violations of relevant provisions of the IBC, 2016. The Appellant prayed for setting aside the appointment of the Respondent based on the facts presented.

Respondent's Submissions:
The Respondent denied the Appellant's allegations and stated that the Adjudicating Authority lawfully appointed the Respondent as Liquidator. The Respondent argued that the Appellant lacked standing to challenge the appointment and that the CoC's decision to appoint the Respondent was valid. The Respondent relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support their position.

Analysis / Appraisal:
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the Appellant was the only party challenging the appointment of the Respondent as Liquidator, with no objections raised by the Resolution Professional. The Tribunal found no evidence of misconduct or lack of jurisdiction in the appointment process. It highlighted the CoC's decision and commercial wisdom in appointing the Respondent. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the authority of the Adjudicating Authority to engage a new Liquidator if necessary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order appointing the Respondent as Liquidator. The appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed without costs, with any pending applications closed.

---