https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94714 NCLAT allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicating Authority violated Section 27 IBC and principles of natural justice by ordering replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) without first placing the agenda before the CoC and without affording the RP an opportunity of hearing. While recognising that an application under Section 60(5) IBC seeking RP's replacement is maintainable, NCLAT held that the statutory procedure under Section 27 and audi alteram partem must be followed. The impugned order was set aside to the limited extent of this procedural defect, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to formulate an agenda for RP's replacement and place it before the CoC for consideration in accordance with Section 27(2) IBC. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:10 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94714 NCLAT allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicating Authority violated Section 27 IBC and principles of natural justice by ordering replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) without first placing the agenda before the CoC and without affording the RP an opportunity of hearing. While recognising that an application under Section 60(5) IBC seeking RP's replacement is maintainable, NCLAT held that the statutory procedure under Section 27 and audi alteram partem must be followed. The impugned order was set aside to the limited extent of this procedural defect, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to formulate an agenda for RP's replacement and place it before the CoC for consideration in accordance with Section 27(2) IBC. Highlights IBC Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94714