Suspension of insolvency registration disables IRP authority and supports substitution in pending CIRP proceedings.

An unchallenged suspension of an insolvency professional's registration by the IBBI was treated as immediately disabling him from acting as IRP in pending CIRP proceedings. The contention that the suspension operated only prospectively was rejected, because the legal effect flowed from the suspension of the underlying registration itself. A complaint of denial of hearing also failed, as the decisive point was that the suspended professional lacked authority to continue. The Adjudicating Authority was therefore justified in removing him and appointing a substitute IRP, and the challenge to the substitution did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether suspension of the insolvency professional's registration by the IBBI disqualified him from continuing as IRP in pending CIRP proceedings, and whether the order substituting him required interference.

Analysis: The suspension order passed by the IBBI remained unchallenged and, once effective, the insolvency professional could no longer assert authority to act as IRP in any pending or future proceeding. The suspension was treated as operating from the source of his registration, so the contention that it applied only prospectively to future appointments was rejected. The plea of denial of hearing was also rejected because the legal consequence of the unchallenged suspension order was that he stood incapacitated to continue in the role. In that view, the Adjudicating Authority was justified in removing him and appointing a substitute IRP.

Conclusion: The challenge to the replacement of the IRP failed, and the impugned order was held not to warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the substitution of the suspended insolvency professional as IRP was sustained.

---