2019 (8) TMI 1551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 27th June, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, which reads as follows: The parties are represented through their respective Learned Counsel/FCA(s). The instant application is filed under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on 18.04.2019 with a prayer to replace the IRP with the proposed RP by the COC. On perusal of the record, it is found that, no ground is given/mentioned in the application showing the cause of replacement of the IRP, who is the appointee of this Adjudicating Authority. It is a matter of record that CP(IB) No. 120 of 2017 was admitted on 27.11.2018, whereas the instant application was preferred on 18.04.2019, after lapse of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gard to the replacement as well as ground were asked by the bench to the Learned Lawyer of the COC then the conducting lawyer of the COC took time for taking necessary instruction and to file supplementary affidavit. The said supplementary affidavit is filed today with a copy to the Resolution Professional. It is pertinent to note that CIRP i.e. 180 days has already been expired on 17.05.2019 but the COC has not taken any necessary steps either to extend the time for further 90 days or able to submit any resolution plan as on date, rather came with an application under Section 22 of the Code on 18.04.2019, ignoring the time bound process of CIRP. Learned FCA/ Resolution Professional is present in person and apprised to thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion Professional', which may otherwise call for proceedings against such 'Resolution Professional'. For the purpose of proceedings reported to the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India' (for short, 'the IBBI', the 'Committee of Creditors' cannot await the decision of the IBBI for the purpose of replacement. The 'Committee of Creditors' having decided to remove the 'Resolution Professional with 88% voting share, it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to interfere with such decision, till it is shown that the decision of the 'Committee of Creditors is perverse or without jurisdiction. The 'Committee of Creditors' with majority voting share of 88% having decided to replace 'Mr. Kiran Shah', he cannot function as 'Resolution Professi....