https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349414 The tribunal held that proposing the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is mandatory for a Financial Creditor under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The absence of a proposed IRP renders the application incomplete, but the Adjudicating Authority must allow for rectification within seven days. The impugned order dismissing the application was overturned as the appellant had indeed proposed an IRP. The case was remitted back for admission, provided the application is otherwise complete, with the appellant given seven days to rectify any defects. The appeal was allowed with no costs. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349414 The tribunal held that proposing the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is mandatory for a Financial Creditor under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The absence of a proposed IRP renders the application incomplete, but the Adjudicating Authority must allow for rectification within seven days. The impugned order dismissing the application was overturned as the appellant had indeed proposed an IRP. The case was remitted back for admission, provided the application is otherwise complete, with the appellant given seven days to rectify any defects. The appeal was allowed with no costs. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349414