06/08/2019

CoC is not required to record any reason or ground for replacing of the Resolution Professional, which may otherwise call for proceedings against such Resolution Professional – Punjab National Bank Vs. Mr. Kirah Shah IRP of ORG Informatics Ltd. – NCLAT

/ 8 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Resolution Professional, we are of the view that the Committee of Creditors is not required to record any reason or ground for replacing of the ‘Resolution Professional’, which may otherwise call for proceedings against such Resolution Professional. For the purpose of proceedings reported to the IBBI, the Committee of Creditors cannot await the decision of the IBBI for the purpose of replacement. The Committee of Creditors having decided to remove the ‘Resolution Professional with 88% voting share, it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to interfere with such decision, till it is shown that the decision of the ‘Committee of Creditors is perverse or without jurisdiction. The Committee of Creditors with majority voting share of 88% having decided to replace Mr. Kiran Shah, he cannot function as Resolution Professional, though he will be entitled to his fee and cost, if any, incurred by him in terms of the Code.

CoC is not required to record any reason or ground for replacing of the Resolution Professional, which may otherwise call for proceedings against such Resolution Professional – Punjab National Bank Vs. Mr. Kirah Shah IRP of ORG Informatics Ltd. – NCLAT Read Post »

The Promoters/ Directors may face serious criminal implication for breach of the orders of SEBI, but that cannot be ground to reject the application u/s 7 against the Corporate Debtor, or to initiate any proceeding under Section 65 against the Appellants, who have no connection with the Directors or Promoters of the Corporate Debtor – Shobhnath & Ors. Vs. Prism Industrial Complex Ltd. – NCLAT

/ 19 minutes of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The Promoters/ Directors may face serious criminal implication for breach of the orders of SEBI, but that cannot be ground to reject the application u/s 7 against the Corporate Debtor, or to initiate any proceeding under Section 65 against the Appellants, who have no connection with the Directors or Promoters of the Corporate Debtor – Shobhnath & Ors. Vs. Prism Industrial Complex Ltd. – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top