The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench observed that the Resolution Professional cannot question the decision of the Committee of Creditors (COC’s) of resolution replacement.
The appeal has been filed against the Order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (“The Adjudicating Authority”) by which order the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application filed under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for replacement of the Appellant with another Resolution Professional-Mr. Ankit Goel.
It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not given an opportunity to place all relevant facts before the Adjudicating Authority when the Order was passed. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has relied on Joint Lenders Meeting dated 28th August, 2023 whereas it has not taken note of minutes of the COC Meeting dated 01st September, 2023 where the agenda for replacement was considered along with all other relevant materials.
It was further submitted that in the agenda for replacement of the Appellant by substituting another Insolvency Resolution Professional name of Anil Goel was mentioned whereas the Adjudicating Authority approved the name of Ankit Goel.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairpersonand Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)observed that “The meeting of CoC was held on 01st September, 2023 in which Resolution to replace the Appellant with Anil Goel was passed. The Appellant himself has in the Appeal pleaded that in the meeting held on 01st September, 2023, the CoC resolved to appoint Mr. Anil Goel. The Appellant has brought on record the CoC minutes of 01st September, 2023 which according to the Appellant were circulated on 04th September, 2023. As per the appellant, apart from Resolution to replace the Appellant with Anil Goel, two other Resolutions were passed i.e. Appellant will continue to function as RP and will receive his monthly remuneration till the confirmation of appointment of another Resolution Professional.”
“The mere fact that the name of RP who is to be appointed after replacement is spelled as Anil Goel instead of Ankit Goel in the minutes which was produced by the Appellant shall have no effect on the resolution for replacement and we do not find any merit in the above submission of the Appellant that although Appellant was decided to be replaced by Anil Goel but ultimate order is of Ankit Goel” the Tribunal noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
