<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Independence of IRP/ RP – law specifically provides for independence from Corporate Debtor only and not from Corporate Creditor. NCLAT/ NCLT ask for substitution of IRP / RP - not justified and is not as per law and general practices.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9439</link>
    <description>The statutory and regulatory framework requires an insolvency professional to be independent of the corporate debtor but does not prohibit prior association with a financial creditor; mere past employment or pension receipt does not by itself render an IRP/RP ineligible. The author argues that IRP/RP duties are administrative and facilitative, that apprehension of bias by a corporate debtor is insufficient to disqualify a proposed practitioner, and that adjudicatory substitution based on such apprehension lacks explicit statutory support and risks enabling delay tactics.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:52:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:52:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Independence of IRP/ RP – law specifically provides for independence from Corporate Debtor only and not from Corporate Creditor. NCLAT/ NCLT ask for substitution of IRP / RP - not justified and is not as per law and general practices.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9439</link>
      <description>The statutory and regulatory framework requires an insolvency professional to be independent of the corporate debtor but does not prohibit prior association with a financial creditor; mere past employment or pension receipt does not by itself render an IRP/RP ineligible. The author argues that IRP/RP duties are administrative and facilitative, that apprehension of bias by a corporate debtor is insufficient to disqualify a proposed practitioner, and that adjudicatory substitution based on such apprehension lacks explicit statutory support and risks enabling delay tactics.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Corporate Laws / IBC / SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:52:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>