Anurag Chandra vs Rohit Sehgal Liquidator Of Affinity ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 898 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A resolution professional who has committed no act of omission or commission disentitling him may be appointed as liquidator of the corporate debtor, where the Committee of Creditors has not objected to, or considered substituting, him; a financial creditor who has been allocated a share in the distribution mechanism cannot override the Committee of Creditors' decision on that appointment merely by reason of his membership of the Committee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rohit Sehgal, Liquidator of Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Shariq Reyaz, Mr. Mansummyer Singh and Ms. Manisha Chaudhary, Advocates
For Respondent : Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Mr. Pervinder Tanwar, Mr. Vineet Kumar and Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocates (Caveator)
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
19.10.2020 The Appellant - Mr. Anurag Chandra (Financial Creditor) has
assailed the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi approving the resolution
plan of 'Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The appeal is limited
to the aspect of appointment of 'Resolution Professional' as 'Liquidator'.
It transpires that the Appellant is a 'Financial Creditor' and he has been
allocated a share in the distribution mechanism. However, even in his capacity
as member of the 'Committee of Creditors' the role of 'Resolution Professional'
has not been found fault with. In absence of any act of omission or commission
attributed to the 'Resolution Professional' disentitling him to be appointed as
'Liquidator', the Appellant cannot over-ride the wisdom of 'Committee of 2
Creditors' as regards appointment of 'Resolution Professional' as 'Liquidator',
more so when no member of the 'Committee of Creditors' ever raised any
objection or even considered substitution of the 'Resolution Professional' by any
other person for being appointed as 'Liquidator'.
We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the very
threshold stage.
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[ Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra ] Member (Technical)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 898 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free