Whether it is mandatory for the Financial Creditor to propose the name of an Interim Resolution Professional in the application under section 7, 9 and 10 of the Code – Chharia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brys International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi
NCLAT held that it is clear that sub-section (3)(b) of Section 7 and sub-section (3)(b) of Section 10, are mandatory and the ‘Financial Creditor’ and the ‘Corporate Applicant’ are required to furnish the name of ‘Interim Resolution Professional’, failing which application being defective may be rejected. On the other hand on bare perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 9, it is clear that for the ‘Operational Creditor’ it is not mandatory to propose the name of an ‘Interim Resolution Professional’, in view of the word ‘may’ used in sub-section (4) of Section 9, as distinct from word ‘shall’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 7 and sub-section (3) of Section 10 of ‘I&B Code’.