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>NCLAT dismisses appeal challenging liquidator appointment due to failure to comply with Regulation 31A mandatory written consent requirement</h1> <h3>AAA Insolvency Professionals LLP Versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.</h3> AAA Insolvency Professionals LLP Versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Appointment of Liquidator2. Compliance with Regulation 31A(11)3. Locus Standi of AppellantSummary:Issue 1: Appointment of LiquidatorThis appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench At Ahmadabad) partly allowing the application bearing I.A No. 1230/AHM/2023 filed in C.P. (IB)/37/AHM/2017 appointing Mavent Restructuring Services LLP (Respondent No. 2 herein) as the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the request for appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator, inter alia, on the ground that there was non-compliance of Regulation 31A of the Regulations as the mandatory written consent form, as stipulated in Form AA Schedule II, had not been filed before the Adjudicating Authority.Issue 2: Compliance with Regulation 31A(11)Regulation 31A(11) of the Regulations categorically provides for a written consent prior to the filing of the application for replacement of the liquidator. It is an admitted fact that no such written consent was submitted by the Appellant to the SCC when it had voted in its favor in the 28th meeting of SCC nor it was annexed with the application filed by the erstwhile liquidator for his replacement with the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has relied on the alleged written consent to act as liquidator which is attached as Annexure A22 dated 29.08.2023, but neither it had reached the Adjudicating Authority nor to the SCC. Even, the erstwhile liquidator who has been pursuing the case of the Appellant being a partner of the Appellant, placed the said consent before the SCC or the Adjudicating Authority.Issue 3: Locus Standi of AppellantThe Respondent argued that the Appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal u/s 61 of the Code because it is not a person aggrieved as the Appellant was only proposed/prospective liquidator having no inherent right to be appointed as the liquidator. The aggrieved person, at the most, could have been either the erstwhile liquidator who had filed the application for replacing him with the Appellant or the SCC who had approved the appointment of the Appellant subject to the approval of the Adjudicating Authority.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Regulation 31A(11) and had no locus standi to file the appeal. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
