https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430223 The Tribunal dismissed the application for the replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the ex-director of the Corporate Debtor, citing lack of maintainability as it was not filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or the Resolution Professional (RP). Allegations of bias and lack of independence against the IRP were raised but were not upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to replace the IRP exclusively rests with the CoC as per Section 22(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Rules, 2016, cannot override this provision. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:16:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430223 The Tribunal dismissed the application for the replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the ex-director of the Corporate Debtor, citing lack of maintainability as it was not filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or the Resolution Professional (RP). Allegations of bias and lack of independence against the IRP were raised but were not upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to replace the IRP exclusively rests with the CoC as per Section 22(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Rules, 2016, cannot override this provision. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 07 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430223