TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In view of the order passed in I.A. No.276 of 2021 in C.P. (IB)No,02lBBl 2020, and for the identical reasons the instant I.A. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I.A. is dismissed." 2. Another Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.231/2022 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru bench, in I.A.No.276 of 2021, in C.P. (IB) No.02/BB/2020 passed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, wherein the following direction was passed: "10. In the circumstances, and in view of the clear mandate of Section 27 of the IBC and in view of the failure in conducting the CIRP by the Respondent in accordance with the Code and Regulations made thereunder, the instant IA is allowed. Accordingly, the Respondent is replaced as the IRP of the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Mylari Agro Products Ltd. and Ms. Shirley Mathew is appointed as the Resolution Professional in place of the Respondent. The Law Research Associate of this Tribunal has checked the credentials of Ms. Shirley Mathew and there is nothing adverse against her. The existing IRP is directed to handover all the records to the new Res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointment. In the said counter application IA No.349/2021, the Ld. NCLT, on 27.10.2021, directed the parties to amicably settle the issue concerning the professional fees and expenses of the RP. (vi) Pursuant thereto, on 30.11.2021, the Adjudicating Authority heard both the Interlocutory Applications and, after considering the submissions of the parties, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the Appellant for re-confirmation as Resolution Professional and allowed the application filed by the Respondent for replacement of the Appellant with a new RP. (vii) Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2021, the present Appeals have been filed. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: 4. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 27(3) of the IBC, inasmuch as it did not render any finding with respect to the allegations made by the Respondent against the Appellant and the defence raised by the Appellant in I.A. Nos. 276 and 349 of 2021, without considering his Addendum of 18.11.2021, or his oral arguments on 23.11.2021. He submits this violated the principle of audi alt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....creditor. 10. Based on his submissions, the Appellant seeks the following reliefs: "(i) Direct Canara Bank to immediately pay his outstanding professional fees of Rs. 17.83 Lakhs and reimburse valid CIRP expenses of Rs. 3.38 Lakhs (totaling Rs. 21.21 Lakhs). (ii) Order the complete expunging of all derogatory and adverse remarks made against his professional reputation in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the Impugned Order" Submissions on behalf of the Respondent: 11. It is submitted that the Appellant cannot question the commercial wisdom of the Financial Creditor, namely Canara Bank, which held 84.60% voting share in the CoC, in seeking replacement of the Appellant as the Resolution Professional in accordance with Section 22 of the IBC,2016 ("IBC"). It is submitted that the Appellant cannot question the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC"), particularly in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Vallal v. Sree Ramkrishna Sponge (P) Ltd. 12. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority specifically observed that the Appellant had failed to furnish any physical or electronic voting record in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsiderable progress towards resolution of insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and reached out to a number of eligible parties in that regard, and that his focus was on nursing back the Corporate Debtor to health whereas the Respondent Bank only intent was on recovering its dues and that is why the difference of opinion between him and the Bank arose leading to demand for his replacement. 18. The Respondent argues that under Section 22 of the IBC, CoC has power to replace RP and the Appellant had violated IBBI regulations, which mandates keeping the voting sheet during CoC meeting. The Respondent further submits that the Appellant did precious little to move the CIRP process forward whereas the new RP was able to conclude the CIRP with getting a resolution plan of Rs. 5.05 crores approved by the CoC with 100% voting on 30.03.2022, within 5 months of her appointment. 19. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the reliefs sought by the Appellant, the Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) With respect to the claim for professional fees and CIRP expenses, the Appellant has sought payment of outstanding professional fees of Rs. 17.83 lakhs ....