https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428707 The Tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 3 should be considered a related party due to ineffective resignations of its directors, disqualifying it from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Interim Resolution Professional's reliance on incorrect information was noted, but no misconduct was found. Respondent No. 3, represented by Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna and Mr. Yogesh Prakash Bafna, was directed to be excluded from the CoC, with the IRP instructed to reconstitute the CoC accordingly. Applications IA (IBC) No. 53/2022 and IA (IBC) No. 54/2022 were partly allowed, affirming Respondent No. 3's related party status and its ineligibility for the CoC. en-us Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Oct 2022 13:09:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428707 The Tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 3 should be considered a related party due to ineffective resignations of its directors, disqualifying it from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Interim Resolution Professional's reliance on incorrect information was noted, but no misconduct was found. Respondent No. 3, represented by Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna and Mr. Yogesh Prakash Bafna, was directed to be excluded from the CoC, with the IRP instructed to reconstitute the CoC accordingly. Applications IA (IBC) No. 53/2022 and IA (IBC) No. 54/2022 were partly allowed, affirming Respondent No. 3's related party status and its ineligibility for the CoC. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428707