Adjudicating Authority had no power to impose Resolution Professional of its choice. Even for Authorised Representative decision of the majority is to be respected – Prakash Shankar Mishra & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kriplani & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi
Section 21(6A) has provision with regard to Authorized Representative. This Section is required to be read with Regulation 16A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. Regulation 16A of these Regulations records procedure with regard to selection of Resolution Professional to act as Authorized Representative.
When Section 21(6A) is read with Regulation 16A(1) and (2), and Resolutions passed by COC are kept in view, it is apparent that the Adjudicating Authority was required to treat Mr. Hari T. Devadiga as Authorized Representative whose name was even recognised by the Respondent No.1 when he filed CA No.669 of 2019. We find Adjudicating Authority had no power to impose Resolution Professional of its choice. Even for Authorised Representative decision of the majority is to be respected.
