After replacement of an Interim Resolution Professional, he has no locus standi to maintain the Appeal as he cannot claim invasion of any of his legal rights & under the IBC, he is not a stake holder – Ranjeet Kumar Verma (Erstwhile IRP) Vs. Committee of Creditors of Straight Edge Contract Pvt. Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) – NCLAT New Delhi
NCLAT held that it is not disputed that the replacement has been done by the Committee of Creditors with 100% vote share, the requisite vote share being 66%. It is indisputable that the Appellant has no vested legal interest and he has no right to continue once the decision is taken by the Committee of Creditors to replace him. He has no locus standi to maintain the Appeal as he cannot claim invasion of any of his legal rights and under the I&B Code, we say so because the Interim Resolution Professional is not a stake holder. That apart, Committee of Creditors which decided to replace Appellant was itself constituted by the Appellant and he would not be permitted to argue that the constitution of Committee of Creditors was bad.
