https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761495 The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging the replacement of a Resolution Professional (RP) in an insolvency proceeding. The Financial Creditor successfully sought replacement under Section 98 IBC, arguing the RP had previously represented both the Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor as counsel in disputes arising from the same debt, creating a conflict of interest. The NCLAT held that while Section 94 grants debtors the right to initiate insolvency proceedings through an RP, Section 98 allows subsequent replacement based on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal found the Financial Creditor's opinion regarding the RP's prior representation was not irrational, and the Adjudicating Authority correctly allowed the replacement application. The appeal was dismissed with no errors found in the impugned order. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:52:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761495 The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging the replacement of a Resolution Professional (RP) in an insolvency proceeding. The Financial Creditor successfully sought replacement under Section 98 IBC, arguing the RP had previously represented both the Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor as counsel in disputes arising from the same debt, creating a conflict of interest. The NCLAT held that while Section 94 grants debtors the right to initiate insolvency proceedings through an RP, Section 98 allows subsequent replacement based on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal found the Financial Creditor's opinion regarding the RP's prior representation was not irrational, and the Adjudicating Authority correctly allowed the replacement application. The appeal was dismissed with no errors found in the impugned order. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761495