The HC held that in CIRP applications under Section 7 or Section...

The HC held that in CIRP applications under Section 7 or Section 10 of the IBC the resolution professional proposed by the applicant must be appointed as IRP unless a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed RP; the NCLT lacks discretion to substitute its own choice of IRP for reasons other than a pending disciplinary proceeding. The impugned NCLT order replacing the applicant's proposed IRP is set aside. The matter is remitted to the NCLT to grant fresh orders on the application filed by the respondent, in accordance with the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice, within six weeks of receipt of this judgment. Petition allowed.