AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by which Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Appellant has been admitted. The Adjudicating Authority while admitting the Application has appointed IRP one Ms Maya Gupta by order which contain in Para 12 of the judgement.
Shri Ramji Srinivasan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has no grievance with regard to the appointment of IRP appointed by the impugned order. He, however, submits that IRP which was proposed by the Financial Creditor had necessary qualifications and ought to have been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. IRP has also filed its reply justifying the appointment.
We are of the view that in view of the fact that the impugned order has appointed only IRP which appointment is not questioned and the Financial Creditor has jurisdiction and authority by virtue of Section 22 and 27 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to take a decision with regard to appointment of RP or to replace the IRP, we see no reason to entertain the issues raised in the Appeal pertaining to the appointment. We are of the view that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority appointing IRP was in peculiar facts before the Adjudicating Authority, which needs no interference. However, as observed above, Financial Creditor can exercise the rights given under Section 22 and 27 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with regard to appointment of RP.
Without entering into various issues raised in the appeal, we dispose of the Appeal leaving all the questions open. The Appeal is disposed off.