https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290635 The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application to change the Interim Resolution Professional, despite unanimous support from the Committee of Creditors, due to lack of valid reasons. A new Resolution Professional was appointed based on the lack of progress during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Allegations against the Resolution Professional were deemed unsubstantiated. The Tribunal emphasized that detailed grounds for replacement were not mandatory and extended the resolution process period by 90 days to allow engagement of the proposed Resolution Professional, disposing of pending extension applications. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 19:06:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290635 The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application to change the Interim Resolution Professional, despite unanimous support from the Committee of Creditors, due to lack of valid reasons. A new Resolution Professional was appointed based on the lack of progress during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Allegations against the Resolution Professional were deemed unsubstantiated. The Tribunal emphasized that detailed grounds for replacement were not mandatory and extended the resolution process period by 90 days to allow engagement of the proposed Resolution Professional, disposing of pending extension applications. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290635