Committee of Creditors' choice of resolution professional prevails absent bias, misconduct, or statutory disqualification under insolvency law.

Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits the Committee of Creditors to replace a resolution professional when the proposal has the requisite voting share, the proposed professional has given written consent, and no disqualifying disciplinary issue is shown. On the stated facts, the Committee of Creditors had approved replacement unanimously and the proposed professional had consented. Mere requests for project-related assurances, a qualified legal opinion, or subsequent engagement of counsel did not establish bias, conflict of interest, or misconduct. The Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute its own nominee for the Committee of Creditors' choice, and such interference was beyond jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could reject the Committee of Creditors' choice of replacement resolution professional and appoint another person of its own choice under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 27 permits the Committee of Creditors to replace the resolution professional if the proposal carries the requisite voting share and the proposed professional gives written consent, subject to forwarding of the name and absence of pending disciplinary proceedings. The record showed that the Committee of Creditors had approved replacement with 100% voting share and the proposed professional had given consent. The grounds relied upon to infer "extraordinary interest" were not supported by any specific legal violation. Seeking project-related assurances, giving a qualified legal opinion in an independent professional capacity, and engaging counsel after being impleaded did not, by themselves, show bias, conflict of interest, or misconduct. The Adjudicating Authority was not empowered to substitute its own nominee for the one chosen by the Committee of Creditors.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Committee of Creditors' nominee and the appointment of a different resolution professional were held unsustainable, and the interference was found to be beyond jurisdiction.

---