Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must be record-based; facilitation of CIRP under CoC directions is not canvassing.

Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must rest on the record and on established duties. Remarks on delayed filing of extension and liquidation applications, including late submission of hard copies, were supported by the record and were upheld. By contrast, criticism that the resolution professional was lax in filing progress reports was unsustainable because no specific reporting direction was shown, and the allegation of canvassing for a particular resolution plan failed because facilitating the CIRP in line with CoC directions and explaining the regulatory framework did not amount to taking sides. The observations on those points were neutralised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adverse remarks concerning delay in filing extension and liquidation applications, and the belated submission of hard copies, called for interference; (ii) Whether the observations that the Resolution Professional was lax in filing progress reports and was canvassing for a particular resolution plan could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the adverse remarks concerning delay in filing extension and liquidation applications, and the belated submission of hard copies, called for interference.

Analysis: The extension applications were moved with delay, and the record showed that in some instances the applications were received after the extended period had already expired. The liquidation-related application was also filed belatedly. Those remarks were supported by the record and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The remarks on delay and belated filing were upheld and remained adverse to the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the observations that the Resolution Professional was lax in filing progress reports and was canvassing for a particular resolution plan could stand.

Analysis: The record did not show any specific duty or direction requiring periodic progress reports in the manner assumed by the Adjudicating Authority, and the criticism on that score was not supported by the established facts. The remarks on canvassing were also unsustainable because the Resolution Professional acted on the CoC's directions and merely facilitated the process, including by explaining the applicable regulatory framework. Such conduct could not be treated as taking sides in the resolution process.

Conclusion: The remarks on progress reports and canvassing were directed not to be read adversely against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the impugned observations partly retained and partly neutralised.

Ratio Decidendi: Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must be grounded in the record, and facilitating the CIRP in accordance with CoC directions does not amount to impermissible canvassing.

---