The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
