Financial Creditor wins replacement of Resolution Professional under Section 98 IBC due to conflict of interest

The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging the replacement of a Resolution Professional (RP) in an insolvency proceeding. The Financial Creditor successfully sought replacement under Section 98 IBC, arguing the RP had previously represented both the Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor as counsel in disputes arising from the same debt, creating a conflict of interest. The NCLAT held that while Section 94 grants debtors the right to initiate insolvency proceedings through an RP, Section 98 allows subsequent replacement based on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal found the Financial Creditor's opinion regarding the RP's prior representation was not irrational, and the Adjudicating Authority correctly allowed the replacement application. The appeal was dismissed with no errors found in the impugned order.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of National Company Law Tribunal regarding replacement of Resolution Professional in insolvency resolution process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The appeal was filed by the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Financial Creditor filed an application seeking the replacement of the RP, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, citing reasons related to his previous professional engagements.

2. Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the RP was appointed by the Adjudicating Authority based on eligibility criteria and there was no evidence to suggest bias or lack of independence. It was emphasized that the RP had only provided legal services to the Personal Guarantor and had not influenced their actions.

3. Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, representing the Financial Creditor, contended that the RP had previously represented the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantor in arbitration proceedings related to the same debt, indicating a lack of independence. The Adjudicating Authority found merit in these arguments and allowed the application for replacement of the RP.

4. Legal Analysis - Section 98 of IBC:
Section 98 of the IBC allows both debtors and creditors to apply for the replacement of an RP if they believe it is necessary. The section does not specify grounds for replacement but requires a subjective opinion based on rational and objective considerations. In this case, the Financial Creditor's opinion regarding the RP's previous professional engagements was considered valid by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. Interpretation of Sections 94 and 98:
While Section 94 grants debtors the right to initiate insolvency resolution through an RP, Section 98 deals with the subsequent replacement of the RP. The Appellant's argument that the RP cannot be replaced once appointed under Section 94 was deemed immaterial as per the statutory scheme of the IBC.

6. Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to allow the replacement of the RP, stating that no error was committed in doing so. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the order for replacement of the RP in the insolvency resolution process.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal provisions, and reasoning behind the Appellate Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal challenging the replacement of the Resolution Professional in the insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

---