https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777221 HC held that for CIRP applications under Sections 7 or 10 of the IB Code the RP proposed by the applicant must be appointed as IRP unless a disciplinary proceeding against the proposed RP is pending; NCLT has no discretion to substitute its own choice. The HC set aside the NCLT order that replaced the applicant-proposed IRP and directed the NCLT to pass fresh orders in accordance with the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice within six weeks of receipt of the HC order. Petition allowed. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777221 HC held that for CIRP applications under Sections 7 or 10 of the IB Code the RP proposed by the applicant must be appointed as IRP unless a disciplinary proceeding against the proposed RP is pending; NCLT has no discretion to substitute its own choice. The HC set aside the NCLT order that replaced the applicant-proposed IRP and directed the NCLT to pass fresh orders in accordance with the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice within six weeks of receipt of the HC order. Petition allowed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777221