AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
19.03.2024: These two appeals have been filed by erstwhile Resolution Professional challenging the order dated 04.03.2024 by which order Adjudicating Authority had replaced the Appellant in the proceeding under Section 95 of IBC by another Resolution Professional and made certain observations against the Appellant.
The Appellant aggrieved has come up in the appeal contending that there was no deficiency in the report submitted by the Appellant. Appellant submitted the report within time provided and there was no occasion for replacement of the Appellant. He submitted that under Section 98 of IBC replacement can be done at the instance of Financial Creditor. It is submitted that the adverse observation made by the Adjudicating Authority shall prejudice the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Appellant want to continue as Resolution Professional seeking reinforcement as Resolution Professional and further there was valid reason for the Adjudicating Authority to replace the Resolution Professional and appoint another Resolution Professional.
We have heard the parties and perused the records. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has given reason for replacement of Resolution Professional. Adjudicating Authority has referred to its order where the Resolution Professional was directed to submit a Report. It is also on record that Report was submitted whereas the observation of Adjudicating Authority is that certain information, which was furnished by the Financial Creditor, were not included in the Report. It is submitted that both Resolution Professional and Financial Creditor prayed for some more time to furnish additional Report which was not allowed.
Be as it may, Adjudicating Authority having found reason to replace Resolution Professional, we see no reason to interfere in the said order in this appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the adverse observation made against the Appellant regarding carrying out his duties need to be deleted from the order impugned. We upheld the impugned order replacing the Appellant. However, we direct deletion of observations made against the Appellant. Appeal is disposed of with the above observations.