RP is duty-bound to comply not only with the timelines under CIRP Regulation 35A but also that the opinion and determination required to be made in terms of sub-regulations (1) and (2) in respect of avoidance transactions – Nitesh Kumar More, RP of SPS Steels Ltd. Vs. SPS Steels Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench
April 18, 2022
The Adjudicating Authority held that we have taken a consistent stand that the RP is duty-bound to comply not only with the timelines under regulation 35A but also that the opinion and determination required to be made in terms of sub-regulations (1) and (2) therefore are important constituents before filing the applications in respect of avoidance transactions. As Adjudicating Authority, we are required to go by the RP’s determination and not on the views of the transaction auditor appointed by the RP. The Adjudicating Authority also removed the Corporate Debtor from the array of Respondents holding that once a Resolution Professional is appointed for the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor is to be represented by the Resolution Professional or Liquidator as and when necessary.