https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782691 Replacement of a resolution professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must follow the statutory mechanism in Section 27, including placement of the proposal before the Committee of Creditors and decision by the requisite voting share; an order bypassing that process could not be sustained. An application under Section 60(5) was treated as maintainable on the facts to raise the grievance, but the resulting order still had to comply with the Code's procedural scheme and principles of procedural fairness. Because the Committee of Creditors was not first moved and the resolution professional was not heard through the prescribed route, the replacement direction was set aside in its present form and the matter remitted for consideration through the statutory process. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782691 Replacement of a resolution professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must follow the statutory mechanism in Section 27, including placement of the proposal before the Committee of Creditors and decision by the requisite voting share; an order bypassing that process could not be sustained. An application under Section 60(5) was treated as maintainable on the facts to raise the grievance, but the resulting order still had to comply with the Code's procedural scheme and principles of procedural fairness. Because the Committee of Creditors was not first moved and the resolution professional was not heard through the prescribed route, the replacement direction was set aside in its present form and the matter remitted for consideration through the statutory process. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782691