https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425478 The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority, having power to appoint a liquidator under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, also had corresponding power to suspend or remove him under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In the absence of an express removal provision in the Code, it relied on Section 276 of the Companies Act, 2013 to recognise misconduct, fraud, misfeasance, professional incompetence, inability to act, and conflict of interest or lack of independence as grounds for removal. The liquidator was found to have acted without valid authorisation for assignment and to have shared the valuation report with prospective scheme proponents, showing lack of due care and diligence. He was replaced by a new liquidator. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2022 09:18:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425478 The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority, having power to appoint a liquidator under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, also had corresponding power to suspend or remove him under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In the absence of an express removal provision in the Code, it relied on Section 276 of the Companies Act, 2013 to recognise misconduct, fraud, misfeasance, professional incompetence, inability to act, and conflict of interest or lack of independence as grounds for removal. The liquidator was found to have acted without valid authorisation for assignment and to have shared the valuation report with prospective scheme proponents, showing lack of due care and diligence. He was replaced by a new liquidator. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425478