https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403026 The appeal centered on the appointment of a Resolution Professional and Authorized Representative in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellants contested the Impugned Order for not appointing individuals chosen by the Committee of Creditors (COC). The case focused on compliance with Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, emphasizing the COC's role in appointing these positions. The dispute also involved the COC's discretion in confirming the appointments and the legality of actions taken by the appointed individuals. The Appellate Tribunal's decision addressed these issues, affirming the appointments made by the Adjudicating Authority. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403026 The appeal centered on the appointment of a Resolution Professional and Authorized Representative in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellants contested the Impugned Order for not appointing individuals chosen by the Committee of Creditors (COC). The case focused on compliance with Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, emphasizing the COC's role in appointing these positions. The dispute also involved the COC's discretion in confirming the appointments and the legality of actions taken by the appointed individuals. The Appellate Tribunal's decision addressed these issues, affirming the appointments made by the Adjudicating Authority. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403026